CAR_Public/141222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 22, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 253


                             Headlines

A & S ENTERTAINMENT: "Masso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
AKORN INC: Delaware Court Dismisses HT Merger Class Action
AKORN INC: California Court Dismissed "Hoover" Class Action
AKORN INC: Settlement in Sinus Buster Action Has Initial OK
AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Securities Suit Over Cole Acquisition

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Overtime Class Action Heads to Arbitration
APPLE INC: Decade-Old Antitrust Battle Comes to IPods' Ownership
APPLE INC: Last Lead Plaintiff in IPod Antitrust Suit Dismissed
APPLE INC: Counsel Says iTunes Antitrust Suit Have Sub Plaintiffs
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Introduce New Class Rep in iPod Suit

APPLE INC: Appeals Panel Hear Arguments in E-Book Antitrust Suit
B & M GENERAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
BFC FINANCIAL: Litigation Over BBX Merger Dismissed
BFC FINANCIAL: Provides Updates on Bluegreen Shareholder Case
BFC FINANCIAL: Provides Updates on BBX Capital Shareholder Suit

BFC FINANCIAL: Updates on NJ Tax Sales Certificate Antitrust Suit
BOLT TECHNOLOGY: Has MOU to Settle Teledyne Merger Class Suits
BUDDY BEE: "Masso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Supervisory Engineers' Suit Affirmed
CANADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss "60s Scoop" Class Action

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Slavery Claim
COBALT INT'L: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Alleged Bribery
COMCAST CORP: Used Routers for Public Wi-Fi Network, Suit Says
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Falsely Marketed TruNature Products, Suit Says
CVB FINANCIAL: Appeals Court to Set Oral Argument Within 6-9 Mos.

DART CHEROKEE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Royalties Class Action
DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
DIRECT SOURCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pacleb" Suit Claims
DOJI INC: Faces "Skiba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DUCK WALK: Faces "Cardona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Must Pay $4.86-Mil. for Infringing Uniloc Patent
ESB FINANCIAL: Faces "Elliott" Suit Over Illegal Sale of Company
FACEBOOK INC: Lemberg Law Firm Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
FACEBOOK INC: Attempts to Preserve Rulings in Ad-Click Suits
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Jan. Trial in Market Rate Savings IRA Case

FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Discovery Starts Three Class Actions
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Participating in PLMBS Class Action
FOREST OIL: 6 Class Suits Filed in NY Court Over Sabine Merger
FOREST OIL: Colorado Court Administratively Closed Class Action
FOREST OIL: Date for Oral Arguments Not Yet Set in Appeal

GARDEN FRESH: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GENERAL MOTORS: Fla. Court Allows "Carriuolo" Suit to Proceed
HHH MOTORS: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration
HILLMAN GROUP: Faces "Santos" Suit in Cal. Over Violation of ADA
HOME DEPOT: Faces First Financial Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

HOME DEPOT: Faces Prepaid Technologies Suit Over Data Breach
INTEGRITY STAFFING: May Not Pay Time Spent for Security Checks
JIDD MOTORS: Faces "Hood" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KATHARYN B. DAVIS: Missouri Court Dismisses "Janson" Suit
KEYSTONE MERCY: Court Remands Flash Drive Suit to Trial Court

KWLT LLC: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LAZZARI FUEL: To Pay $4.6-Mil. to Settle Federal Antitrust Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Illinois Court Certifies "Casso" Suit
MARS INC: Calif. Court Grants Bid to Stay "Gustavson" Suit
MID-ATLANTIC HEALTH: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims

MIDAMAR CORP: Sued Over Beef Product False Advertising
NACOGDOCHES COUNTY: Faces "Manis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NAT'L FOOTBALL: CVS Subpoenaed in Drug Misuse Class Action
NEW YORK: NY AG Warns Police on Killing Unarmed Black Man
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Defective Vehicle Transmissions

NORTH CAROLINA: Inmate Suit Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Securities Class Action Fully Resolved
PARTNERS REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Suit in Ontario Superior Court
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Mediation Set to Resolve Class Action
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery Conducted in LCA-Vision Merger Suits

PHOTOMEDEX INC: Mediation Scheduled in D.C. Class Action
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery Commenced in Calif. State Court Action
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Plaintiffs' Counsel Appeals Israeli Court Ruling
POPULAR INC: BPNA Opposes Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
POPULAR INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Quiles" Class Action

POPULAR INC: Motion to Transfer "Fernandez" Case Remains Pending
POPULAR INC: Settlement in "Alvarez" Case Being Discussed
POPULAR INC: Faces "Valle" Class Action Lawsuit
PORCAO GRILL: "Pinckney" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PTZ INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Legg" Suit Claims

PYOD LLC: Court Grants Stay & Permits Interlocutory Appeal
QUALITY RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
REDCO GROUP: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RES-CARE INC: Settlement Payments Expected Through Early 2015
RLI INSURANCE: NY Court Affirms "Stecko" Class Certification

ROCK CREEK: Trial Date in Class Actions Set in May 2015
ROCK CREEK: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Class Action Under Advisement
ROOSEVELT FIESTA: Faces "Saucedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SAKS FIFTH: Sued Over Failure to Properly Display Return Policy
SANOFI: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in New York

SCE GROUP: "Gaskin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SILVERCORP METALS: February 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SIRIUS XM: To Pay $3.8-Mil. to Settle Suits Over Subscription
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
SOUTH STATE: Court Approves Settlement & Dismisses Rational Suit

SOUTH STATE: Court Okays Settlement & Dismisses FFHI Litigation
SOUTH STATE: Court Okays Deal & Dismisses 2nd Rational Action
TAKATA CORP: Faces Defective Airbag Class Action in Canada
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Transfer Venue of "Emerson" Suit Granted
UNITED STATES: Judge Approves SSA Class Action Settlement

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Provides Updates on Endoscopy Center Case
US POSTAL: Slapped With Interest on Underpaid Life Insurance
VISA INC: Sued in Texas by 93 Merchants for Imposing Excess Fees
WESTERN POWER: Parkerville Bushfire Victims Mull Class Action
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Rejects TCE Class Action Certification

WINDERMERE COURT: Settles Apartment Fire Class Action for $4.75MM
WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Ritchie" Suit Over Defective Windows
XL SPECIALITY: CA Seeks Guidance From Georgia Supreme Court
YAHOO INC: 9th Cir. Adopts Correction Theory in Securities Suit
ZIMMER INC: 5th Cir. Remands Implant Case for Evidentiary Hearing


                            *********


A & S ENTERTAINMENT: "Masso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Masso, and other similarly situated individuals v. A & S
Entertainment, LLC d/b/a The Office a/k/a Jim's Catering, Inc., a
Florida corporation, and Claudette M. Pierre, Case No. 1:14-cv-
24730 (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a catering business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AKORN INC: Delaware Court Dismisses HT Merger Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Akorn 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 Delaware court entered
judgment, granted final settlement approval, and dismissed the
class action related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "HT
Merger Agreement") to acquire Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co.

On August 27, 2013, the Company entered into the HT Merger
Agreement.  In connection with the HT Merger Agreement, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware on August 30, 2013, captioned Karant v. Hi-Tech
Pharmacal Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8854-VCP, alleging, among
other things, that Hi-Tech and Hi-Tech's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that the Company aided and
abetted the alleged breaches. The Karant complaint sought, among
other things, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from
completing the merger and directing the defendants to account to
the plaintiff and the purported class for damages allegedly
sustained, and an award of fees, expenses and costs.

In addition, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Suffolk
County, New York, captioned Wackstein v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co.,
Inc., et al., Index No. 063450/2013, similarly alleging, among
other things, that Hi-Tech and Hi-Tech's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that the Company aided and
abetted the alleged breaches. The Wackstein complaint sought,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants
from completing the Merger and directing the defendants to account
to the plaintiff and the purported class for damages.

The defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiff's counsel, dated November 26, 2013, in connection with
the Karant and Wackstein actions, pursuant to which Hi-Tech, the
Company, the other named defendants and Wackstein agreed to
dismiss the Wackstein action with prejudice effective with the
settlement and dismissal of the Karant lawsuit. On July 30, 2014
the Delaware Court entered judgment, granted final settlement
approval, and dismissed the action.

Akorn, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries through its
Prescription Pharmaceuticals reportable segment manufactures and
markets a full line of diagnostic, therapeutic and disease
specific ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, antidotes, anti-allergics,
anti-infectives, vaccines, and controlled substances for pain
management and anesthesia as well as niche hospital drugs of
various dosage forms and injectable pharmaceuticals.  Through its
Consumer Health reportable segment, the Company manufactures and
markets a line of over-the-counter ("OTC") ophthalmic products for
the treatment of dry eye under the TheraTears(R) brand name, as
well as a portfolio of private label OTC ophthalmic products and
other consumer health products.


AKORN INC: California Court Dismissed "Hoover" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Akorn 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 California court entered
judgment, granted final settlement approval, and dismissed the
class action lawsuit by Linda Hoover.

On December 12, 2012, plaintiff Linda Hoover, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit
against Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., in the Superior Court for the State
of California, which Hi-Tech removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Civil Action No. 5:2013-
0097, alleging that Hi-Tech's marketing and sales of its Nasal
Ease(R)  product is a violation of various state statutes,
including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law and Unlawful, Fraudulent & Unfair Business
Practices Act. Hi-Tech answered the complaint on January 14, 2013.
The parties have reached a settlement in this action as set forth
in the Class Action Settlement Agreement, dated as of August 15,
2013. On April 8, 2014 the Court entered judgment, granted final
settlement approval, and dismissed the action.

Akorn, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, through its
Prescription Pharmaceuticals reportable segment manufactures and
markets a full line of diagnostic, therapeutic and disease
specific ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, antidotes, anti-allergics,
anti-infectives, vaccines, and controlled substances for pain
management and anesthesia as well as niche hospital drugs of
various dosage forms and injectable pharmaceuticals.  Through its
Consumer Health reportable segment, the Company manufactures and
markets a line of over-the-counter ("OTC") ophthalmic products for
the treatment of dry eye under the TheraTears(R) brand name, as
well as a portfolio of private label OTC ophthalmic products and
other consumer health products.


AKORN INC: Settlement in Sinus Buster Action Has Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Akorn Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York has preliminarily approved a
settlement by a revised Order dated February 4, 2014, in the class
action lawsuit over the Sinus Buster products.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiff Mathew Harrison filed  a class action
lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2897, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, Walgreens Co. and Hi-
Tech. On May 16, 2012, plaintiff David Delre filed a class action
lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2429, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, and Hi-Tech. Each
complaint alleges, among other things, that their Sinus Buster(R)
products are improperly marketed, labeled and sold as homeopathic
products, and that these allegations support claims of fraud,
unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties and
alleged violations of various state and federal statutes. Hi-Tech
answered the complaints and asserted cross-claims against the
other defendants. The Court consolidated these two cases into one
action entitled Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litigation. Dynova
has filed for bankruptcy. The case has now been settled by Hi-Tech
with plaintiffs by Agreement dated December 16, 2013 and the Court
has preliminarily approved the settlement by a revised Order dated
February 4, 2014.

Akorn, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, through its
Prescription Pharmaceuticals reportable segment manufactures and
markets a full line of diagnostic, therapeutic and disease
specific ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, antidotes, anti-allergics,
anti-infectives, vaccines, and controlled substances for pain
management and anesthesia as well as niche hospital drugs of
various dosage forms and injectable pharmaceuticals.  Through its
Consumer Health reportable segment, the Company manufactures and
markets a line of over-the-counter ("OTC") ophthalmic products for
the treatment of dry eye under the TheraTears(R) brand name, as
well as a portfolio of private label OTC ophthalmic products and
other consumer health products.


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Securities Suit Over Cole Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Wunsch, Individually on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.,
Nicholas S. Schorsch, David S. Kay, Peter M. Budko, Brian S.
Block, Lisa E. Beeson, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr.,
Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell and Scott J. Bowman, Case
No. 03C14012816 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore Cty., November 25, 2014)
seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons, who acquired the
common stock of the Company pursuant or traceable to the alleged
false and defective Registration Statement issued in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Cole Real Estate Investments,
Inc.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York City.  The Company is a
self-managed commercial real estate investment trust focused on
investing in single tenant freestanding commercial properties
subject to net leases with high credit quality tenants.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick C. Smith, Esq.
          DEHAY & ELLISTON L.L.P.
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1300
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 783-7019
          Facsimile: (410) 783-7221
          E-mail: psmith@dehay.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B St., Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (800) 350-6003
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Overtime Class Action Heads to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Mueller, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports
that a class action lawsuit filed against Anheuser-Busch InBev
over allegedly unpaid overtime has been sent to an arbitrator.

Two truck drivers filed the class action lawsuit against A-B InBev
in California in August, alleging the brewer did not pay them for
overtime and denied paid breaks.

A California federal judge has ruled that the drivers were bound
by an arbitration agreement, despite their claims that they did
not receive copies of the agreement in the mail, and has granted
A-B InBev's motion to have the suit sent to an arbitrator to
decide whether the agreement applies to the plaintiffs, Law360
reports.

St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch is part of Belgium-based Anheuser-
Busch InBev, which reported 2013 revenue of US$43.2 billion.


APPLE INC: Decade-Old Antitrust Battle Comes to IPods' Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Arvin Temkar reports that a
decade-old antitrust class action against Apple could come down to
who actually owns a pair of iPods bought by the lead plaintiff.

The lawsuit, filed in 2005, accuses Apple of keeping iPods from
playing music purchased from competing music stores through a
series of updates to its iTunes platform.  At trial, which finally
began on the first week of December, Apple defended the updates as
necessary to fix flaws and bolster security against hackers.

On December 5, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the suit because
lead plaintiff Marianna Rosen allegedly did not buy one of the
iPod models relevant to the case.  Apple said the purchases Rosen
claims to have made during the 2006 to 2009 class period were
actually made using a credit card belonging to the law firm of
Rosen's ex-husband, where Rosen worked for several years.

In a response filed Dec. 6, attorneys for Rosen argued that the
woman does in fact have title to devices purchased in 2008.

"Ms. Rosen paid for the iPods with a credit card that she
frequently used during the time for personal purchases,"
plaintiffs' attorneys said in the response.  "The credit card had
her name on it and she was authorized to use it for such
purchases."

Rosen gave one of the devices to her son and kept the other one
for her own personal use, the motion stated.  And the purchase of
a third iPod in 2006 -- within the class period -- further cements
Rosen's right to be in the lawsuit, according to the filing.

But Apple shot back on December 8 with its own filed response,
saying "this $1 billion case is now about one-half of two iPods."

"The sole remaining named plaintiff, Marianna Rosen, concedes that
this case, in which Ms. Rosen seeks a judgment for more than $1
billion, now turns entirely on her purported marital property
interest in two iPods purchased on the corporate credit card of
her former husband's law firm," Apple stated.

"Whatever Ms. Rosen's motivation or practice, use of the law
firm's credit card to make purchases means that the corporation,
not Ms. Rosen, was the purchaser of the iPods," the response
continued.

Previously, attorneys for the class agreed to dismiss Melanie
Tucker, the second lead plaintiff, from the case for a similar
reason.  That move left Rosen as the only person representing an
estimated 8 million consumers and 500 businesses.

Lawyers briefly discussed the issue with U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers this morning, but the judge has not made a
decision and allowed the trial to resume.

Apple Inc. is represented by:

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
          Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave, NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
                  kdunn@bsfllp.com
                  mgoodman@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          John F. Cove, Jr., Esq.
          Kieran P. Ringgenberg, Esq.
          Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq.
          Maxwell V. Pritt, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 874-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
          E-mail: jcove@bsfllp.com
                  kringgenberg@bsfllp.com
                  mdearborn@bsfllp.com
                  mpritt@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David C. Kiernan, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com

The case is Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:05-
cv-00037-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Oakland Division.


APPLE INC: Last Lead Plaintiff in IPod Antitrust Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that in a ruling
late December 8, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
dismissed lead plaintiff Marianna Rosen from the iTunes antitrust
case against Apple, according to The Associated Press.

The decade-old class action centers around claims that Apple's
updates to its iTunes platform kept iPod users from playing music
purchased from competing music services.

Days into the trial -- which began on the first week of December
-- attorneys for the class agreed to dismiss one of the lead
plaintiffs from the case, since she did not actually purchase an
iPod within the 2006 to 2009 class period.  Apple then moved to
dismiss Rosen for the same reason.

In a response filed over the first weekend of December, class
attorneys said Rosen had in fact bought two iPods -- one for
herself and one for her son -- using a credit card issued to her
ex-husband's law firm, where she worked at the time.  Apple
responded on December 8 by saying the devices belonged to the law
firm and not Rosen.

During December 8's proceedings, Rogers ordered Rosens' attorneys
to find a new plaintiff by December 9, despite Apple's argument
that it's too late to find a new one, the AP said.

In court this afternoon plaintiffs' attorney Bonnie Sweeney said
her team has received "a number of inquiries" from class members
regarding the case, and that attorneys "certainly have another
plaintiff."


APPLE INC: Counsel Says iTunes Antitrust Suit Have Sub Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that the two lead
plaintiffs in a decade-old antitrust class action against Apple
are gone, but class attorneys told a federal judge on December 9
that they have backups.

Class attorneys submitted five replacement options for new lead
plaintiff last night and early this morning in the antitrust case
that accuses Apple of using updates to its iTunes platform to bar
iPod users from playing music purchased from competing music
services.

Days into the trial -- which began on the first week of December
-- attorneys for the class agreed to dismiss one of the lead
plaintiffs from the case, since she did not actually purchase an
iPod within the 2006 to 2009 class period.  Apple then moved to
dismiss the remaining lead plaintiff, Marianna Rosen, for the same
reason.

But in a response filed over the weekend, class attorneys said
Rosen had in fact bought two iPods -- one for herself and one for
her son -- using a credit card issued to her ex-husband's law
firm, where she worked at the time.  Apple responded on December 8
by saying the devices belonged to the law firm and not Rosen.

During December 8's proceedings, U.S. District Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers ordered Rosens' attorneys to find a new plaintiff
by December 8, despite Apple's argument that it's too late to find
a new one.

On December 8, class attorneys informed Rogers of five replacement
candidates.

"We believe these people will satisfy all the requirements to be
adequate class representatives," attorney Patrick Coughlin, of the
firm Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd, told Rogers in court.

But Apple attorney William Isaacson, of the firm Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, asked Rogers to dismiss two of the potential replacements
because they weren't submitted until this morning.

"There's no excuse for this," Isaacson said.

Rogers denied the request, but appeared frustrated at the
situation.

"I will consider the additional two, but it is done," Rogers said.
"There is no one else."

The trial could be delayed for a few days while attorneys vet the
potential plaintiffs.


APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Introduce New Class Rep in iPod Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
seemed to salvage their monopoly case against Apple Inc. on Dec. 9
with the introduction of an ice skating class representative and
her red iPod Nano.

Barbara Ragan Bennett swears she bought the iPod during the class
period, resolving the crisis that faced plaintiffs after three
class representatives before her either were withdrawn or
rejected. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers struck the
last named plaintiff on Dec. 8, midway through the two-week trial
in Oakland federal court.  She ordered plaintiffs lawyers with
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to present a substitute or forsake
the case.

Apple lawyers William Isaacson and Karen Dunn of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner have yet to vet Bennett, but unless they can dig up a
reason why she shouldn't represent the class, the trial will
proceed as scheduled.

Ms. Bennett was the first of five possible substitutes plaintiffs
lawyers had lined up on Dec. 9.  But Judge Gonzalez Rogers said
she was satisfied with Ms. Bennett and found no need to call the
others.

"I've got someone here who's made a purchase during the relevant
time period with her own funds," the judge said, "has some
experience, at least from what I can tell is intelligent and
concerned, and doesn't have any relationship to the lawyers, and
reached out on her own accord."

Plaintiffs lawyers, led by Bonny Sweeney and Patrick Coughlin of
Robbins Geller, finished their case on Dec. 9, and Apple was set
to open on Dec. 10 with testimony from a series of experts.

Though Ms. Bennett is single-handedly holding plaintiffs' case
together, the jury will likely never hear from her.  The trial is
expected to wrap up early this week.

Lawyers representing the class of more than 8 million iPod
consumers and 500 retailers are asking for $1 billion in damages
as compensation for technical changes they say Apple made to
secure its grip on the MP3 market.  They argue a pair of 2006 and
2007 iTunes updates illegally excluded competition by preventing
iPods from playing songs purchased from other music stores.
Apple's lawyers say the updates were needed to fix security holes.
Bennett lives in the Boston area and works as a consultant, she
told the court on Dec. 9 after the jury was excused.  She has a
background in finance and technology.  Ms. Bennett said she uses
iPods to provide musical accompaniment while she ice skates, a
hobby she picked up as an adult.

She bought a red iPod Nano in 2006, and over the years has built a
large collection of MP3 songs.  But Ms. Bennett recounted that she
ran into problems when trying to download certain rare pieces of
music -- "not your standard Lady Gaga or Madonna" -- that were not
available on iTunes.  Ms. Bennett says when she bought the music
from other music stores, she had to burn it to CDs and then upload
it to her computer before she could play it on her iPod.

"It was very cumbersome," she said.  "And some of it didn't work
at all because of the file format."

Apple's team was not happy with the plaintiffs' last-minute move
to save their case.  Mr. Isaacson complained his team hadn't
receive a complete list of the proposed class representatives
until just before 8:00 a.m. on Dec. 9. "This is becoming a
circus," he said.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers conceded Apple has been inconvenienced, but
said she is trying to minimize the harm.  She offered Mr. Isaacson
some consolation: "You have an appellate issue now."


APPLE INC: Appeals Panel Hear Arguments in E-Book Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals panel is
trying to decide whether Apple Inc. or Amazon.com Inc. was the
bigger bully when price wars over electronic books heated up a few
years ago.

Three judges listened to arguments on Dec. 15 after Apple appealed
a judge's finding.  The earlier ruling concluded that the
Cupertino, California company colluded with book publishers in
2010 to raise e-book prices.

One judge questioned how unfair it was for Apple to bust
Amazon.com's one-time monopoly of the e-book market.

Other judges also found possible flaws with the case brought by
the Justice Department against Apple and various publishers.

The lower-court judge appointed a monitor to review Apple's
compliance with antitrust laws.  That judge also ordered the
company to modify its contracts with publishers.


B & M GENERAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Morales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. B & M General Renovation Inc., d/b/a B&M General
Renovation, and Michael Luong, in his individual and professional
capacities, and Theresa Luong, in her individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-07290 (E.D.N.Y., December 15, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated
damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

B&M General Renovation Inc. is a remodeling contractor operating
in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Dickerson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com


BFC FINANCIAL: Litigation Over BBX Merger Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based BFC Financial Corporation (OTCQB:
BFCF; BFCFB) and BBX Capital Corporation (NYSE: BBX), formerly
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., in November unveiled the dismissal
with prejudice of the In Re: BBX Capital Corporation Litigation.
This litigation, a purported class action against BFC, BBX Capital
and the members of BBX Capital's Board of Directors, was brought
challenging the fairness of the proposed merger between BFC and
BBX Capital and seeking an injunction to block the transaction.
The Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County,
Florida denied plaintiff's motion for class certification and
dismissed the case with prejudice on November 5, 2014.
Approximately 97% of the BBX Capital shareholders and 86% of the
minority shareholders represented at the shareholders' meeting to
approve the transaction voted in favor of the merger.

The merger remains subject to certain closing conditions,
including the listing of BFC's Class A Common Stock on a national
securities exchange (or interdealer quotation system of a
registered national securities association). BFC and BBX Capital
do not currently anticipate that the merger will be consummated
prior to the first quarter of 2015.

BFC (OTCQB: BFCF; BFCFB) is a holding company whose principal
holdings include a 51% ownership interest in BBX Capital
Corporation (NYSE: BBX) and its indirect ownership interest in
Bluegreen Corporation. BFC owns a 54% equity interest in
Woodbridge, the parent company of Bluegreen. BBX Capital owns the
remaining 46% equity interest in Woodbridge. Bluegreen manages,
markets and sells the Bluegreen Vacation Club, a flexible, points-
based, deeded vacation ownership plan with more than 180,000
owners, over 60 owned or managed resorts, and access to more than
4,000 resorts worldwide. BBX Capital, a New York Stock Exchange
listed company, is involved in the acquisition, ownership,
management, joint ventures and investments in real estate and real
estate development projects, as well as acquisitions, investments
and management of middle market operating businesses.  BBX Capital
also has a 46% equity interest in Bluegreen.


BFC FINANCIAL: Provides Updates on Bluegreen Shareholder Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation, 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
In re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder Litigation.

Between November 16, 2011 and February 13, 2012, seven purported
class action lawsuits related to the previously proposed stock-
for-stock merger between BFC, which at that time was the sole
member of Woodbridge, and Bluegreen were filed against Bluegreen,
the members of Bluegreen's board of directors, BFC and BXG Florida
Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodbridge formed for
purposes of the merger ("BXG Merger Sub").  Four of these lawsuits
have been consolidated into a single action in Florida, and the
other three lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action
in Massachusetts and stayed in favor of the Florida action.

The four Florida lawsuits, captioned and styled Ronald Kirkland v.
Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Richard
Harriman v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 22,
2011); Alfred Richner v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on
December 2, 2011); and BHR Master Fund, LTD et al. v. Bluegreen
Corporation et al. (filed on February 13, 2012), were consolidated
into an action styled In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder
Litigation. On April 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint which alleged that the individual
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i)
agreeing to sell Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure
adequate, fair and maximum consideration, (ii) engineering a
transaction to benefit themselves and not the shareholders, and
(iii) failing to protect the interests of Bluegreen's minority
shareholders.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs also alleged that
BFC breached its fiduciary duties to Bluegreen's minority
shareholders and that BXG Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Bluegreen's directors and BFC.  In
addition, the complaint included allegations relating to claimed
violations of Massachusetts law.  The complaint sought declaratory
and injunctive relief, along with damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The three Massachusetts lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
for Suffolk County in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and styled
as follows: Gaetano Bellavista Caltagirone v. Bluegreen
Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Alan W. Weber and
J.B. Capital Partners L.P. v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed
on November 29, 2011); and Barry Fieldman, as Trustee for the
Barry & Amy Fieldman Family Trust v. Bluegreen Corporation et al.
(filed on December 6, 2011).   In their respective complaints, the
plaintiffs alleged that the individual director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Bluegreen
without first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and maximum
consideration.  The Fieldman and Weber actions contained the same
claim against BFC.  In addition, the complaints included claims
that BXG Merger Sub, in the case of the Fieldman action, BFC and
BXG Merger Sub, in the case of the Caltagirone action, and
Bluegreen, in the case of the Weber action, aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On January 17, 2012, the
three Massachusetts lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action styled In Re Bluegreen Corp. Shareholder Litigation, which
is presently stayed in favor of the Florida action.

Following the public announcement of the termination of the stock-
for-stock merger agreement and the entry into the Bluegreen-
Woodbridge Cash Merger Agreement during November 2012, the
plaintiffs in the Florida action filed a motion for leave to file
a supplemental complaint in order to challenge the structure of,
and consideration received by Bluegreen's shareholders in, the
Bluegreen-Woodbridge Cash Merger.  On November 30, 2012, the
Florida court granted the plaintiffs' motion and the supplemental
complaint was deemed filed as of that date.  The supplemental
complaint alleges that the merger consideration remained
inadequate and continued to be unfair to Bluegreen's minority
shareholders.

On January 25, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Florida action filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint that set forth more fully
their challenge to the Bluegreen-Woodbridge Cash Merger.  The
Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts claims for (i)
breach of fiduciary duties against the individual director
defendants, BFC, and Woodbridge, (ii) aiding and abetting breaches
of fiduciary duties against Bluegreen, BFC, Woodbridge, and BXG
Merger Sub, and (iii) a violation of the section of the
Massachusetts Business Corporation Act regarding the approval of
conflict of interest transactions.  During December 2013, class
action certification was granted to the plaintiffs in the Florida
action.

The Bluegreen-Woodbridge Cash Merger was consummated on April 2,
2013.  However, the actions related to the transaction remain
pending, with the plaintiffs seeking to recover damages in
connection with the transaction.  BFC and Bluegreen believe that
these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.


BFC FINANCIAL: Provides Updates on BBX Capital Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation, 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
In re BBX Capital Corporation Shareholder Litigation.

On May 30, 2013, Haim Ronan filed a purported class action against
BFC, BBX Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital's
board of directors seeking to represent BBX Capital's shareholders
in a lawsuit challenging the currently proposed merger between BFC
and BBX Capital. In this action, styled Haim Ronan, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan B. Levan, John
E. Abdo, Jarett S. Levan, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian,
Charlie C. Winningham, II, David A. Lieberman, Willis N. Holcombe,
Anthony P. Segreto, BBX Capital Corporation, BFC Financial
Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC filed in the Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Mr.
Ronan asserted as a cause of action that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith,
in part, by failing to obtain a high enough price for the shares
of BBX Capital's Class A Common Stock to be acquired by BFC in the
merger. Mr. Ronan also asserted a cause of action against BFC and
BBX Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. Mr. Ronan sought an injunction blocking the
proposed merger.

On May 31, 2013, in an action styled John P. Lauterbach, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BBX Capital
Corporation, John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren,
Bruno L. Di Giulian, John K. Grelle, Willis N. Holcombe, Alan B.
Levan, Jarett S. Levan, David A. Lieberman, Anthony P. Segreto,
Charlie C. Winningham II, Seth M. Wise, BFC Financial Corporation
and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, John P.
Lauterbach filed a purported class action against all of the
defendants named in Mr. Ronan's complaint, which challenged the
currently proposed merger for substantially the same reasons as
set forth in Mr. Ronan's complaint, but asserted an additional,
direct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties against BFC,
Alan B. Levan and John E. Abdo. Mr. Lauterbach also added as
defendants Norman H. Becker, who was appointed to BBX Capital's
board of directors on May 7, 2013, as well as Seth M. Wise, who
serves as an executive officer and director of BFC and as an
executive officer of BBX Capital, and John K. Grelle, who serves
as an executive officer of BFC and BBX Capital.

On September 4, 2013, the Ronan and Lauterbach actions were
consolidated into a single action styled In Re BBX Capital
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, with the complaint filed in
the Lauterbach action being the operative complaint in the
consolidated action. On October 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in the consolidated action.  In the amended
complaint, which included the same causes of action set forth in
the Lauterbach complaint, the plaintiffs: (i) alleged that the
merger, including the exchange ratio and other terms and
conditions of the merger agreement, is unfair to BBX Capital's
minority shareholders and is the product of unfair dealing on the
part of the defendants; (ii) alleged that the defendants
initiated, timed, negotiated and structured the merger for the
benefit of BFC and to the detriment of BBX Capital's minority
shareholders, including that BFC and its and BBX Capital's
management caused BBX Capital to engage in transactions which had
the effect of reducing BBX Capital's intrinsic value; (iii)
challenged the independence of the members of BBX Capital's
special committee and the process pursuant to which BBX Capital's
special committee engaged its legal and financial advisors, and
negotiated and approved the merger agreement, including
limitations on its ability to pursue alternative transactions;
(iv) asserted that BBX Capital's shareholders' rights to appraisal
do not constitute an adequate remedy; and (v) alleged that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger contains
material misrepresentations and does not contain adequate
disclosure regarding the merger and specifically the value of BBX
Capital and the shares of its Class A Common Stock, and fails to
provide the plaintiffs and BBX Capital's minority shareholders the
information necessary to determine whether the merger
consideration is fair.

On November 8, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint arguing that plaintiffs' remedies were limited
to an action for appraisal under Florida law.  On April 8, 2014,
the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on April 18,
2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Second Amended Class Action Complaint added allegations with
respect to BBX Capital's March 21, 2014 definitive proxy
statement.  Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the definitive
proxy statement failed to provide full and accurate disclosure
regarding: (i) the timing of the merger, (ii) the status of the
listing of the shares of BFC's Class A Common Stock to be issued
in the merger; (iii) transactions impacting valuation following
the negotiation of the exchange ratio; (iv) the per share value of
shares held by BBX Capital's minority shareholders and (v) the
fundamental assumptions underlying the opinion of BBX Capital's
financial advisor.  On November 5, 2014, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and dismissed the case
with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs have the right to appeal this
ruling.  BBX Capital and BFC believe the claims to be without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.


BFC FINANCIAL: Updates on NJ Tax Sales Certificate Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation, 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
New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of CAM, among others, as defendants.  The class
action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all
persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who
had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that
was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."
Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction. During this period, Fidelity
Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was
contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in
the BB&T Transaction.  BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion
to Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court
granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint
with prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to
plaintiffs' main antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs' counsel filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint on January 6, 2014.  BBX Capital
believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously
defend the action.


BOLT TECHNOLOGY: Has MOU to Settle Teledyne Merger Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bolt Technology 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, the members of the Company's board of directors, Teledyne
Technologies Incorporated, and Merger Sub entered into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs in the
three pending class action lawsuits providing for the settlement
of all claims in the cases.

On September 3, 2014, the Company entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which
Teledyne Technologies Incorporated ("Teledyne") will acquire the
Company (the "Merger").

Between September 10, 2014 and September 24, 2014, five
substantially similar putative class action complaints were filed
in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut naming the
Company, the members of the Company's board of directors,
Teledyne, and a Teledyne merger subsidiary ("Merger Sub") as
defendants. The complaints alleged that the members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Bolt's shareholders by agreeing to sell Bolt for inadequate and
unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair
process, and that Teledyne and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted
those alleged breaches. Teledyne and/or Merger Sub removed all
five cases to Federal Court. On October 23, 2014, amended
complaints were filed in four of the cases. On October 16, 2014,
the court consolidated all of the cases identified above into
Armin Walker v. Bolt Technology Corporation et al., C.A. No. 3:14-
cv-01406, (the "Action"). On October 31, 2014, one of the five
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed her case, leaving four
consolidated cases in the Action. On November 3, 2014, the Federal
Court remanded the Action to state court in Connecticut, which
also had the effect of returning the cases to four separate cases
(the "Cases"). On November 10, 2014, one of the remaining four
plaintiffs withdrew his case, leaving a total of three separate
Cases.

On November 10, 2014, the Company, the members of the Company's
board of directors, Teledyne, and Merger Sub entered into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs in the
three pending Cases providing for the settlement of all claims in
the Cases. Under the MOU, and subject to conditions, including
court approval and further definitive documentation, the
plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class they represent have
agreed to settle and release, against the defendants and their
affiliates and agents, all claims in the Action and Cases and any
potential claim related to (i) the Merger and/or the Merger
Agreement, or any amendment thereto; (ii) the adequacy of the
consideration to be paid to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the Merger; (iii) the fiduciary obligations of any
of the defendants or other released parties in connection with the
Merger and/or the Merger Agreement, or any amendment thereto; (iv)
the negotiations in connection with and process leading to the
Merger and/or the Merger Agreement, or any amendment thereto; and
(v) the disclosures or disclosure obligations of any of the
defendants or other released parties in connection with the Merger
and/or the Merger Agreement.

The settlement provides for the Company to file additional
disclosures supplementing its Definitive Proxy Statement, which
disclosures will be filed as soon as the MOU is executed by all of
the parties. The settlement will be subject to approval by the
Connecticut Superior Court, after a hearing at which dissenting
stockholders can object. The settlement application to the court
will include an application for payment by defendants of
plaintiffs' legal fees. The amount of such legal fees is
undetermined at this time. The Company anticipates that its D&O
insurance will cover any such payments, subject to any applicable
deductible.


BUDDY BEE: "Masso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Masso, and other similarly situated individuals v. Buddy
Bee Corp. d/b/a Take One Lounge, a Florida corporation, and Karen
Raley, Case No. 1:14-cv-24720 (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant on Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Supervisory Engineers' Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment
of dismissal in the case captioned JOHN PROKOP et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, No. B247393 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiffs are supervisory engineers employed by the State of
California.  Their claim concerns pay raises on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly situated.  They argued they
were entitled to a 10.1 percent pay raise from 2008 to the
present, as initially allocated in the 2008 Budget Act, which the
Department of Human Resources (CalHR) failed to pay in violation
of the pay parity provisions of Government Code section 19826.

The trial court sustained the demurrers of defendant government
officials and entered a judgment of dismissal. On appeal,
plaintiffs have limited their claim to the contention that they
are entitled to compensation appropriated and approved in the 2008
Budget Act.

In its petition for writ of mandate, Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants have a clear, present, mandatory and ministerial duty
to pay their equal salaries to rank-and-file engineers with
comparable duties. Plaintiffs contend that the payment of
compensation approved by CalHR and appropriated by the Legislature
is a ministerial act subject to a writ of mandate. Further,
Plaintiffs contend that their action is not subject to the one-
year statute of limitations contained in section 19815.8 because
it is not related to any law administered by CalHR.

However, the Appellate Court ruled that their action is time-
barred by virtue of Government Code Section 19815.8.  The code
provides that an action or proceeding shall commence within one
year after the cause of action or complaint or ground for issuance
of any writ or legal remedy first arose. Plaintiffs were required
to initiate their action within one year of the date that they
failed to receive the additional compensation. Plaintiffs'
complaint in 2012 was filed long after the one-year limitations
period ran on deficient payments made under the 2008 Budget Act.
Hence, the trial court properly found the complaint barred under
section 19815.8.

A copy of the Order dated October 22, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/1nLVDHRfrom Leagle.com.


CANADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss "60s Scoop" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Diana Mehta, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that an
Ontario court has dismissed an appeal by the federal government
that sought to quash a class action lawsuit which claims a
devastating loss of cultural identity was suffered by Ontario
children caught in the so-called "60s scoop."

The scoop refers to a period of time between the 1960s and the
1980s when thousands of aboriginal children were taken from their
homes and placed with non-native families by child welfare
services.

The Divisional Court ruling finds that the case deals with a
person's connection to their aboriginal culture "as a whole."

"It is difficult to see a specific interest that could be of more
importance to aboriginal peoples than each person's essential
connection to their aboriginal heritage," Justice Ian Nordheimer
writes in the decision on the case which was heard by a panel of
three judges in Toronto last month.

"The importance of aboriginal rights cannot be disputed."
An Ontario court certified the class action lawsuit in July last
year, but the federal government then sought, and was granted,
leave to appeal that decision.

The ruling on that appeal, released on Dec. 3, explained that the
issue of whether a proper cause of action was pleaded was the
matter in dispute.  The panel of judges found that aboriginal
claims are ones which are "particularly undeveloped and fluid,
consequently, greater latitude should be accorded to them."

The period covered by the lawsuit stretches from December 1965 --
when the federal government signed an agreement with Ontario known
as the Canada-Ontario Welfare Services Agreement -- until December
1984, when aboriginality was made an important factor in child
protection and placement practices through the Child and Family
Services Act.

The lawsuit alleges many children suffered emotional,
psychological and spiritual harm as a result of a loss of
connection to their aboriginal culture.  The case's representative
plaintiff, Marcia Brown Martel, has claimed her loss of cultural
identity left her feeling like she didn't belong in aboriginal or
mainstream society.  She was taken by child welfare services from
her home on an Ontario First Nations reserve as a young child. She
was adopted into a non-indigenous family at the age of nine, at
which point her aboriginal name was changed.

Ms. Martel cut ties with her adoptive family after she turned 18
and eventually returned to the reserve where she had been born.
After years of slow and often painful re-integration, she is now
the chief of the Beaverhouse First Nation in northern Ontario's
Kirkland Lake region.

In a statement released on Dec. 3, Ms. Martel and her lawyer
called the ruling an "unprecedented" one which "sets the standards
for protecting cultural rights of all peoples."  The plaintiffs in
the lawsuit are seeking a declaration that Canada breached its
fiduciary obligation and is seeking $85,000 in damages for each
class member.  Ms. Martel's lawyer has said there are believed to
be 16,000 surviving children of the 60s scoop in Ontario.  None of
the claims in the suit have been proven in court.


CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Slavery Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Once ripped from their families after World War II to populate
Australia with "pure white stock," Maltese children described
"shocking violations of internationally accepted norms" in a
federal lawsuit four years ago.  But Supreme Court precedent and
the statute of limitations means that the Catholic orders that
treated them "essentially as slaves" will never see a federal
jury, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a
2nd Circuit ruling entered on December 8.

Emmanuel Ellul says that he was 14 years old when the Congregation
of Christian Brothers told his parents that he and his brothers
would be able to return to Malta following his education in
Australia.

Instead, the Roman Catholic order forced them into physical labor
from morning until nightfall and told them his parents were dead,
Ellul alleged.

Now 68, Ellul became the first of three named plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of as many as 10,000 former
child migrants, some as young as three years old, sent from
Britain or its former colony Malta to Australia on cheap labor
schemes between 1947 and 1967.

The children allegedly worked "essentially as slaves, for long
hours without pay, and were subjected to extreme physical and, in
some cases, sexual abuse," the appellate court noted.

The Australian government acknowledged the existence of the
program in 2001, and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued a
former apology for the abuse they suffered in 2009.

The next year, the former child migrants sought to hold the
Congregation of Christian Brothers, Order of the Sisters of Mercy,
Catholic Religious Order and Mercy International liable for
violating the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law that was briefly
reanimated toward the turn of the 20th century to sue companies
for overseas atrocities.

The use of this statute to redress corporate wrongs committed
abroad has been all but gutted in the wake of last year's Supreme
Court's decision in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge
Gerard Lynch ruled on December 8 that the alleged victims had no
case because of the Kiobel precedent and the statute of
limitations.

Lawyers for the former child migrants and the Catholic orders did
not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Emmanuel Ellul, Valerie Carmack, and Hazel
Goulding are represented by:

          Neal A. Deyoung, Esq.
          H. Rajan Sharma, Esq.
          SHARMA & DEYOUNG LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 856-7236
          E-mail: neal@sharmadeyoung.com
                  rajan@sharmadeyoung.com

Defendant-Appellee Congregation of Christian Brothers is
represented by:

          Timothy James O'Shaughnessy, Esq.
          Matthew W. Naparty, Esq.
          MAURO LILLING NAPARTY LLP
          130 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 100
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 487-5800
          Facsimile: (516) 487-5811
          Toll Free: 1-888-487-5800
          E-mail: mnaparty@mlnappeals.com

Defendant-Appellee Order of the Sisters of Mercy is represented
by:

          Thomas Edward Wack, Esq.
          Michael Gordon Biggers, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
          E-mail: tewack@bryancave.com
                  mgbiggers@bryancave.com

The case is Emmanuel Ellul, et al. v. Congregation of Christian
Brothers, Order of the Sisters of Mercy, Catholic Religious Order,
Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees; Mercy International Association,
Defendant, Case No. 11-1682-cv, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.


COBALT INT'L: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Alleged Bribery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit alleges an oil
company violated federal law by engaging in bribery with foreign
officials.

The St. Lucie County, Fla., Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust Fund and Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund filed the
suit against Cobalt International Energy.

The plaintiffs are seeking class status for those who purchased
Cobalt securities between Feb. 21, 2012, and Nov. 4.  The lawsuit
alleges Cobalt secured permission to drill in Angolan wells
through bribery and partnerships with shell corporations that were
partially owned by "high-level Angolan officials."

The lawsuit alleges the company violated the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA) by paying foreign officials through third
parties or shell companies.  Cobalt denied any wrongdoing when the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced in February 2012
that it was investigating the company for potential violations of
the FCPA.

Additionally, the company allegedly lied about the amount of oil
and natural gas that was in the Angolan wells.

The falsified information artificially inflated the value of the
company, the lawsuit said.  The company eventually admitted one of
the wells in Angola contained more natural gas than originally
estimated.  Cobalt's stock fell from $22.23 to $17.51 over a
recent four-day span, the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gerald Drought --
gdrought@mdtlaw.com -- of Martin & Drought P.C.; Gerald Silk, Avi
Josefson and Adam Wierzbowski -- adam@blbglaw.com -- of the
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; and Robert Klausner --
bob@robertdklausner.com -- and Bonni Jensen --
bonni@robertdklausner.com -- of Klausner Kaufman Jensen &
Levinson.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
case number 4:14-cv-03428.


COMCAST CORP: Used Routers for Public Wi-Fi Network, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action accuses Comcast of surreptitiously making
its residential customers bear the cost of using their wireless
routers to set up a secondary public wi-fi network, reports
Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Toyer Grear sued Comcast on Dec. 4.

He claims that Comcast saw its millions of residential customers
as an opportunity to compete with major cellular carriers such as
AT&T and Verizon.  Though Comcast does not have cellular towers,
its customers' households "could be used as infrastructure for a
national wi-fi network," the complaint states.

So Comcast supplied its residential customers with new wireless
routers equipped to broadcast their home wi-fi signals and
additional wi-fi signals for the public, selectively activating
the routers to broadcast the secondary public network (the
"Xfinity wifi hotspot") across the country, with the goal of
enabling 8 million hotspots by the end of 2014, according to the
lawsuit.

"Public" in this case does not mean "free," but that access is
available to anyone who pays to use a particular wi-fi hotspot.

Grear claims that Comcast does not request customers'
authorization to use their residential equipment and networks for
public use.

"Indeed, Comcast's contract with its customers is so vague that it
is unclear as to whether Comcast even addresses this practice at
all," the lawsuit claims.

In using its customers' home networks to build a national network,
Comcast "has externalized the costs of its national wi-fi network
onto its customers," Grear says in the complaint.

He claims that the new routers use much more electricity than
regular routers, and that this is "a cost borne by the unwitting
customer."

Engineers at Speedify, a technology company that increases
Internet connection speeds, ran tests on Comcast's new routers and
determined that "Comcast will be pushing tens of millions of
dollars per month of the electricity bills needed to run their
nationwide public wi-fi network onto consumers," the complaint
states.

Based on the results of this study, Grear claims, Comcast's
residential customers can expect electricity cost increases as
great as 30 to 40 percent.

In addition, Grear claims, the Xfinity hotspots slow down the
speed of customers' home wi-fi networks, since these home networks
are available for use by strangers.

They also expose Comcast's residential customers' data to
increased privacy and security risks, according to the complaint.

Comcast declined to comment.

Grear seeks certification of a class of all households in the
United States that have subscribed to Comcast's Xfinity Internet
Service, and a subclass of all California households that have
subscribed to the service.

He also seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, restitution and
damages for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian Wade, Esq.
          Sara Avila, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop N
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
                  savila@milsteinadelman.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Falsely Marketed TruNature Products, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tatiana Korolshteyn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-05447
(N.D. Cal., December 15, 2014), alleges that the Defendant falsely
represents on the front of each and every TruNature Ginkgo label
that the Product supports alertness & memory and on the side of
each and every label that Ginkgo Biloba can help with mental
clarity and memory and it also helps maintain healthy blood flow
to the brain to assist mental clarity and memory, especially
occasional mild memory problems associated with aging.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American membership-only
warehouse club that provides a wide selection of merchandise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
      Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
      Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
              psyverson@bffb.com

         - and -

      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-7748
      E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

         - and -

      Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
      STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC
      53 W. Jackson Suite 364
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 588-5033
      E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


CVB FINANCIAL: Appeals Court to Set Oral Argument Within 6-9 Mos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial 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 a court of appeals
is expected to schedule oral argument at some point within the
next six to nine months, and would then issue its opinion at some
point six to nine months thereafter in an appeal in a class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "On July 26, 2010, we received a subpoena from
the Los Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company's
allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines,
methodology for grading loans, and the process for making
provisions for loan losses. In addition, the subpoena requested
information regarding certain presentations Company officers have
given or conferences Company officers have attended with analysts,
brokers, investors or prospective investors. We have fully
cooperated with the SEC in its investigation, and we will continue
to do so if and to the extent any further information is
requested, although we have not been contacted by the SEC in
connection with this matter since October 2011. We cannot predict
the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation or if it is still
continuing."

"In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation,
on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and
Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former
Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On
September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On
January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions
for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No.
CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx).

"That same day, the District Court also appointed the Jacksonville
Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville Fund") as lead
plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville
Fund's selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed
a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging
violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely
affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which
is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The
consolidated complaint sought compensatory damages and other
relief in favor of the purported class.

"Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following
filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the
District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but
providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended
complaint within 30 days of the ruling. On September 20, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same
defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on
October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25,
2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013.

"Although the District Court's most recent order of dismissal
provided the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended and
restated complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the order, on
June 3, 2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead filed a Notice of
Intent Not to File an Amended Complaint, along with a request that
the District Court convert its order to a dismissal with
prejudice, so that plaintiffs could proceed straight to appeal at
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 30,
2013, the District Court entered its order dismissing the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice, and the
plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on October 24, 2013.

"With respect to the appeal, the plaintiffs' opening brief was
filed on June 7, 2014, the Company's reply brief was filed on July
7, 2014, and the plaintiff's rebuttal brief was filed on August
20, 2014. It is expected that the Court of Appeals will schedule
oral argument at some point within the next six to nine months,
and would then issue its opinion at some point six to nine months
thereafter.

"The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the
plaintiff's allegations in this case."


DART CHEROKEE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Royalties Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court won't make it
tougher for defendants in class-action lawsuits to transfer cases
from state courts to more business-friendly federal court.

The justices on Dec. 15 ruled 5-4 in favor of a Michigan energy
company that wanted to move a class-action case from Kansas state
court to federal court without showing evidence that damages in
the case would exceed $5 million.  That is the minimum amount
required for transferring such cases.

The case involved a group of royalty owners who sued Dart Cherokee
Basin Operating Co. alleging they were underpaid royalties on oil
and gas wells.

A federal judge refused to transfer the case without evidence of
damages.  A federal appeals court declined to consider an appeal,
but the Supreme Court said the law does not require such evidence.

The case is, DART CHEROKEE BASIN OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS, v. BRANDON W. OWENS, NO. 13-719 (U.S.).

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY and
KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but
the final sentence. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

A copy of the decision is available at http://is.gd/taFey0from
Leagle.com.


DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Stewart and John Charlton, writing for Fox CT, report that a
law firm has filed class action lawsuits against four electric
suppliers for deceptive practices.  The four companies accused of
over-charging customers are Direct Energy, North American Power
and Gas, Viridian Energy, and Discount Power.

The filing attorney, Robert Izard, of Izard Nobel, said the
companies claim in their contracts that their variable rates go up
and down with the wholesale price of electricity.  But the
lawsuits allege that the rates per kilowatt hour actually stay
high when wholesale prices go down.

Izard argued state paperwork shows that rates can be as high as
five times the wholesale price.

Consumers have a choice of which company supplies the power in
their homes.  Many choose to stay with CL&P.  Others were lured by
the promise of lower rates and have switched suppliers.  The
suppliers act as a broker, buying and reselling the energy at a
higher price.  Mr. Izard claimed customers sign up with certain
electric suppliers when the original fixed rate is good.

"What you often get is a 'teaser rate,' it will last for three,
four, five months," Mr. Izard said.  "And then when that teaser
rate expires, it automatically shifts to a variable rate and
that's when people are seeing the big price jumps."

Fox CT reached out to the companies being sued for comment, but
only North American Power provided a statement that the lawsuit is
absolutely without merit and that the company provides written
notices to customers when their fixed rates are becoming variable
rates.


DIRECT SOURCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pacleb" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florencio Pacleb, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Direct Source Mortgage Services, Ltd., an
Ohio Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-09592 (C.D. Cal.,
December 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Direct Source Mortgage Services, Ltd. is a loan and mortgage
service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOJI INC: Faces "Skiba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Skiba, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Doji, Inc., d/b/a Demos' Steak & Spaghetti House, and
Peter Demos, Case No. 3:14-cv-02355 (M.D. Tenn., December 15,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1119 NW
Broad St., Murfreesboro, TN 37129.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall W. Burton, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL W. BURTON
      144 Second Avenue, North, Suite 212
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 620-5838
      Facsimile: (615) 620-5837
      E-mail: rburtonlaw@gmail.com


DUCK WALK: Faces "Cardona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Efren Cardona, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Duck Walk, Inc. and Worrachi Nusphayoon,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10056 (N.D. Ill., December 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Must Pay $4.86-Mil. for Infringing Uniloc Patent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that video game giant
Electronic Arts must pay over $4.86 million for infringing on a
computer security firm's anti-software piracy patent, a federal
jury concluded.

Plano, Texas-based Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. sued
in 2013, claiming EA's SecuROM video game activation system
infringes on U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216.  The system allows EA
customers to activate and register their video games and is aimed
at reducing piracy and "casual copying," Uniloc alleged.  SecuROM
restricts the number of devices a customer can simultaneously
activate a game on with the same key.  EA games that use the
system include "Alice: Madness Returns," "Dragon Age II" and
"Darkspore: Limited Edition," the complaint stated.

Uniloc asked the court to for compensatory damages and "a
reasonable, on-going, post judgment royalty."

A federal jury agreed with Uniloc and awarded over $4.86 million
in compensatory damages on December 5.

EA and Uniloc did not immediately respond to requests for comment
on December 8 morning.

Redwood City, California-based EA has faced previous lawsuits over
its use of SecuROM.  Players of "Spore" filed a class action in
San Jose Federal Court in Sept. 20008, claiming SecuROM was
installed onto their computers as a separate, free-standing
program without their authorization.

They claimed the program was "uninstallable" that "remains a
fixture in their computer unless and until the consumer completely
wipes their hard drive through reformatting or replacement of the
drive."

A second class action with similar allegations was filed one month
later by players of "Mass Effect."


ESB FINANCIAL: Faces "Elliott" Suit Over Illegal Sale of Company
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Elliott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ESB Financial, Inc., Herbert S. Skuba, Charlotte A.
Zuschlag, James P. Wetzel, Jr., Mario J. Manna, William B.
Salsgiver and Wesbanco, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01689 (W.D. Pa.,
December 15, 2014), arises out of the attempt to sell the ESB
Financial, Inc. to WesBanco, Inc. by means of an unfair process
and for an unfair price.

ESB Financial, Inc. operates as a thrift holding company for ESB
Bank that provides various retail and commercial financial
products and services in Western Pennsylvania in the United
States.

Wesbanco, Inc. operates as a holding company for WesBanco Bank,
Inc. that provides retail banking, corporate banking, personal and
corporate trust services, and mortgage banking and insurance
services in the Unites States.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of ESB
Financial, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR.
      429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny Building
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 391-5164
      E-mail: Yateslaw@aol.com


FACEBOOK INC: Lemberg Law Firm Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of Noah Duguid, Lemberg Law filed a class action lawsuit
against Facebook, Inc., alleging that the social media behemoth
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unwanted
text messages to consumers' cell phones using an automated
telephone dialing system.  According to consumer attorney Sergei
Lemberg, "We're pleased to be able to help Mr. Duguid get the
justice he deserves."

In Duguid v. Facebook (U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York), Mr. Duguid alleges that Facebook "negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully sent unauthorized automated text
messages to [his] cellular phone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act."

The suit alleges that, beginning in January 2014, "Facebook placed
repeated text messages to [Duguid]."  The complaint reproduced the
messages, which were variations of, "Your Facebook account was
accessed from an unknown browser at 2:16 p.m. Log in for more
info."  The complaint states that, in April, Mr. Duguid "sent
Facebook a detailed email complaining of the unauthorized text
messages to his cell phone and requesting that the text messages
cease."  Facebook responded with an automated email directing Mr.
Duguid "to log on to the Facebook website to report problematic
'content.'"  The complaint further outlines that Mr. Duguid
replied, again explaining the issue, and noting, "A human needs to
read this email and take action."  According to the complaint, "In
response, Facebook sent the same automated email as received in
response to the first email."

The legal filing outlines the next in a sequence of events. It
notes that, in October, Mr. Druguid "responded to a text message
form Facebook with the word 'off'.  Facebook responded: 'Facebook
texts are now off. Reply on to turn them back on.'" Nevertheless,
according to the complaint, ". . . the very same day, Facebook
sent Plaintiff another text message. [Druguid] once again
responded 'off' and 'all off.' Again, Facebook responded,
'Facebook texts are now off.  Reply on to turn them back on.'
Again, still in the same day, Facebook sent [Druguid] another text
message."

The complaint seeks to represent two classes of consumers.  The
first class consists of those who didn't provide Facebook with
their cell phone number and who received text messages from
Facebook within the past four years. The second class consists of
those how notified Facebook that they no longer wanted to receive
text messages, and received a confirmation from Facebook, but
still received a text message from the company.

Spam text messages are all-too-common.  The complaint noted,
". . . the Pew Research Center found that 69% of texters reported
receiving unwanted spam text messages, while 25% reported
receiving spam texts weekly."

The lawsuit went on to say, "Servicing over a billion Facebook
accounts worldwide, Facebook's automated systems are powerful and,
when used improperly, capable of extreme invasions into the
privacy of American consumers . . . . Facebook operates a sloppy
system and in doing so shows complete disregard for the privacy of
consumers."

This release references Duguid v. Facebook (U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:14-cv-09456-SAS).

                     About Lemberg Law
The attorneys at Lemberg Law represent consumers in Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and
lemon law cases, among others. Sergei Lemberg can brief you about
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, remedies available to
consumers who are victims of spam text messages, and other
relevant issues.


FACEBOOK INC: Attempts to Preserve Rulings in Ad-Click Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that in back-to-back
arguments before an appellate panel on Dec. 9, lawyers for
Facebook Inc. and Google Inc. attempted to preserve rulings
denying class certification in cases challenging the companies'
fees for online advertising.

Plaintiffs firms accuse Facebook of charging for invalid clicks in
its pay-per-click advertising system and claim Google's Adwords
keyword advertising program inappropriately charged to place ads
on error pages and so-called parked domains.

The lawsuits, which target major revenue streams at the web
giants, met similar fates in district court in 2012.

In January of that year, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the
Northern District of California declined to certify a class in the
Google case, concluding Google's dynamic pricing model made the
calculation of restitution too individualized for class treatment.
Judge Davila's Northern District colleague Phyllis Hamilton
reached a similar conclusion in the Facebook pay-per-click cases
in March 2012.  Ms. Hamilton found there was no way to parse the
millions of clicks in the purported class to sort allegedly
invalid clicks from the valid ones and wrote that plaintiffs
failed to establish that contract terms allegedly breached by
Facebook were part of all the underlying contracts.

Circuit judges A. Wallace Tashima and Richard Paez of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on Dec. 9
challenging the two class-certification rulings.  They were joined
by U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist of the Western District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.

Judge Tashima directed his most skeptical question to Facebook's
lawyer, Kristin Myles -- Kristin.Myles@mto.com -- of Munger,
Tolles & Olson.  "Facebook's case seems to come down to this," he
said.  "This subject is so technical and so complicated and we've
purposely made our contract so ambiguous that no one's ever going
to be able to file a class action on this.  Isn't that what it
comes down to?"

Ms. Myles responded that company faces a "conundrum."  Laying out
exactly how the company determines which clicks are valid would
lead people to find ways to work around the company's filters,
making them ineffective.  "What comes across clearly in the record
is people acting in good faith" to try to provide service to
advertising customers, she said.

Arguing for plaintiffs in Fox Test Prep v. Facebook, 12-16601,
Seeger Weiss' Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- said
nothing in Facebook's argument showed that claims would be unique
to any single advertiser.  "[Myles] didn't say that Coca-Cola has
a different filter.  If that were the case, we wouldn't be here,"
he said.

In Levitte v. Google, 12-16752, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe's
Miranda Kolbe argued that Google served ads to sites its own
employees considered "illegitimate, spammy, shady, garbage
websites."  Judge Davila's ruling inappropriately based his class-
certification decision on the difficulty of calculating
restitution for individual plaintiffs.

Google's lawyer, Cooley partner Michael Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- responded that Judge Davila considered
three proposed formulas from the plaintiffs and found that some
advertisers actually profited from ad placement on the sites in
question.  The plaintiffs claims showed "too many individual
issues rather than common issues," Rhodes argued, adding that
Judge Davila's factual findings are subject to deference.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Jan. Trial in Market Rate Savings IRA Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial 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 Market Rate Savings IRA Litigation is scheduled for
trial on January 20, 2015.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank was filed as a class action on
January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. The action alleges that First Commonwealth
Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum interest rate
of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as long as the
class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA account. The
class asserted that the Bank committed fraud, breached its
modified contract with the class members, and violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL") when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market Rate
Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a roll-over
IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate. Plaintiffs sought monetary
damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for
the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law violations and attorney's fees.

The court ruled that the IRA contract only guaranteed the 8%
return until the 90-day or 18-month maturity of each instrument.
The court granted class certification as to the breach of modified
contract claim and denied class certification as to the fraud and
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
claims. The breach of contract claim was predicated upon a letter
sent to customers in 1998 which reversed an earlier decision by
the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the accounts.

The letter stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as
notification that a decision has been made to re-establish the
rate on your account to eight percent (8)%. This rate will be
retroactive to your most recent maturity date and will continue
going forward on deposits presently in the account and on annual
additions."

On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order granting the Bank's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the class action claims.
The Court found that the Bank retained the right to resign as
custodian of the accounts and that the act of resigning as
custodian and closing the accounts did not breach the terms of the
underlying IRA contract.

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the denial of class
certification to the claims of fraud in the execution and
violation of the UTPCPL. The Superior Court found that none of the
other issues were ripe for appeal. Jurisdiction was returned to
the Court of Common Pleas where the individual fraud and UTPCPL
claims of Mr. and Mrs. McGrogan are pending.

Plaintiffs filed their pretrial statement on June 16, 2014,
seeking $0.5 million in damages for the McGrogans and $0.8 million
for their adult children beneficiaries. The Bank considers these
damage claims exaggerated and otherwise invalid. The Bank has
filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted as to the
claims of the adult children beneficiaries. The case is scheduled
for trial on January 20, 2015.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Discovery Starts Three Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial 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 discovery in three class actions is beginning.

In December 2013, three new complaints were filed by 34 former
members of the McGrogan class:

     (1)  Jarrett et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action
filed by eight plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland
County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL,
breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel.

     (2) Young et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action filed
by 12 plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland County
Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL,
breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel.

     (3) Fisanik et. al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action
filed by 14 plaintiffs on December 9, 2013 in the Cambria County
Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL, and
breach of fiduciary duty.

The 36 plaintiffs who have filed individual actions held Market
Rate Savings IRA balances totaling approximately $4 million at the
time of the Bank's resignation as custodian of the IRAs in 2008-
09. The average age of the plaintiffs at that time was 62.

The Bank filed preliminary objections to the three new complaints.

On July 22, 2014 the court issued an order permitting the three
new cases to proceed only on theories of fraud in the execution
and violation of the UTPCPL based on fraud in the execution and
dismissing the claims for fraud in the inducement, breach of
fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel with prejudice. Discovery
in the three actions is beginning.

At this time, the Bank believes the claims are without merit.


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Participating in PLMBS Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Financial Services 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 Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg
(the Bank) is currently participating in a class-action lawsuit
against one PLMBS servicer that centers on defective warranties
and representations made as part of the underwriting process.


FOREST OIL: 6 Class Suits Filed in NY Court Over Sabine Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil 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 six putative
shareholder class action complaints have been filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York by purported Forest common
shareholders related to the merger transaction with Sabine Oil &
Gas LLC.

On May 5, 2014, Forest entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Sabine Oil & Gas LLC ("Sabine"), under which Forest
and Sabine will combine their businesses in an all-stock
transaction.  Since the announcement of the Sabine transaction,
six putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by purported Forest
common shareholders. These actions are captioned Stourbridge
Investments LLC v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Index No.
651418/2014, filed May 7, 2014; Raul, et al. v. Carroll, et al.,
Index No. 651446/2014, filed May 9, 2014; Rothenberg v. Forest Oil
Corp., et al., Index No. 651499/2014, filed May 15, 2014;
Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Index No. 651506/2014,
filed May 16, 2014; Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Index No.
651523/2014, filed May 16, 2014; and Jabri v. Forest Oil Corp., et
al., Index No. 651551/2014, filed May 20, 2014.

On July 8, 2014, the New York Court consolidated the New York
actions and captioned the case In re Forest Oil Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 651418/2014, and on July 17,
2014, the New York plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint (the "New York Action"). The New York Action names as
defendants each of the current directors of Forest, as well as
Sabine Oil & Gas LLC and certain of its affiliates and investors,
and seeks, among other things, to enjoin the combination
transaction or, in the event the combination transaction is
consummated, to recover damages. The action alleges, among other
things, that the members of the Forest board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Forest shareholders by agreeing to the
original transaction announced by Forest and Sabine on May 6, 2014
for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate
process, that the revised transaction structure announced by
Forest and Sabine on July 10, 2014 was structured to deprive
Forest shareholders of their right to vote on the combination
transaction, and that the disclosures made by Forest in the
Schedule 14A proxy statement filed on July 16, 2014 were
inadequate.

The New York Action also includes allegations challenging the
company's sale of its Texas Panhandle assets to Templar Energy,
which closed on November 25, 2013. The New York Action further
alleges that Sabine Oil & Gas LLC and certain of its affiliates
aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The parties are
currently engaged in expedited discovery in connection with the
claims.

Forest Oil is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids ("NGLs") primarily in North
America.


FOREST OIL: Colorado Court Administratively Closed Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil 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 shareholder
class action was administratively closed by a court in Colorado.

One putative shareholder class action complaint has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado by
two purported Forest common shareholders (the "Colorado Action"),
captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
01409, filed May 19, 2014. The plaintiffs in the Colorado Action
filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2014. The Colorado action
names as defendants each of the current directors of Forest, as
well as Forest, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and certain of
their respective affiliate entities. The action seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the original transaction or, in the event the
original transaction is consummated, to recover damages. The
action alleges, among other things, that the members of the Forest
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Forest
shareholders by agreeing to sell Forest transaction for inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process, and that
certain of the entity defendants, including Sabine Holdings and
certain of its affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged
breaches. In addition, the Colorado Action further alleges
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with
Forest's disclosures in the Form S-4 registration statement filed
by Forest on May 29, 2014. Plaintiff in the Colorado Action is
coordinating with the plaintiffs in the New York Action, and there
have been no separate substantive proceedings in the Colorado
Action. On October 14, 2014, the Colorado Action was
administratively closed by the Colorado Court.

Forest Oil is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids ("NGLs") primarily in North
America.


FOREST OIL: Date for Oral Arguments Not Yet Set in Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil 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 date for oral
arguments has not yet been set in an appeal related to the lawsuit
styled In re Lone Pine Resources Inc.

On March 26, 2014, the judge overseeing the lawsuit styled In re
Lone Pine Resources Inc. (formerly referenced as Augenbaum v. Lone
Pine Resources Inc. et al.), granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

The original claim was brought on May 25, 2012, as a purported
class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County against Forest, Lone Pine, certain of Lone Pine's
current and former directors and officers (the "Individual
Defendants"), and certain underwriters (the "Underwriter
Defendants") of Lone Pine's initial public offering (the "IPO"),
which was completed on June 1, 2011. The class action was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that Lone
Pine's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the IPO contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted to state material facts relating to forest fires that
occurred in Northern Alberta in May 2011, the rupture of a third-
party oil sales pipeline in Northern Alberta in April 2011, and
the impact of those events on Lone Pine, that the alleged
misstatements or omissions violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and that Lone Pine, the
Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants are liable
for such violations. (The complaint was subsequently amended to
drop the allegation regarding the forest fires.) The complaint
further alleged that the Underwriter Defendants offered and sold
Lone Pine's securities in violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, and the putative class members sought rescission
of the securities purchased in the IPO that they continued to own
and rescissionary damages for securities that they had sold.
Finally, the complaint asserted a claim against Forest under
Section 15 of the Securities Act, alleging that Forest was a
"control person" of Lone Pine at the time of the IPO. The
complaint alleged that the putative class, which purchased shares
of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Lone
Pine's registration statement and prospectus, was damaged when the
value of the stock declined in August 2011.

Lone Pine's obligation to indemnify Forest, the Individual
Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants, was extinguished in
Lone Pine's bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs appealed the
decision on April 28, 2014, and briefing was completed on August
5, 2014, and appellate briefs have been submitted. A date for oral
arguments has not yet been set.

Forest Oil is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids ("NGLs") primarily in North
America.


GARDEN FRESH: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yendira Lopez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Garden Fresh Mundelein, LLC, and Adi Mor,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10058 (N.D. Ill., December 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd., Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Fla. Court Allows "Carriuolo" Suit to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geri Siano Carriuolo, et al., sued General Motors, LLC, for
misrepresentations made in connection with their purchase of new
cars.  The Plaintiffs allege that they bought new 2014 Cadillac
CTS sedans from third-party General Motors dealerships.  The
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge James I. Cohn of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
denied in an order dated Dec. 11, 2014.

The case is GERI SIANO CARRIUOLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-61429-CIV-COHN/SELTZER (S.D.
Fla.).  A full-text copy of Judge Cohn's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/eCtHAZfrom Leagle.com.

Geri Siano Carriuolo, Plaintiff, represented by Donald R.
Fountain, Jr., Esq. -- dfountain@clarkfountain.com -- at Clark,
Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & Littky-Rubin, LLP & Jeffrey M.
Liggio, Esq. -- jliggio@liggiolaw.com -- at Liggio Benrubi.

Peter Bracchi, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey M. Liggio, Liggio
Benrubi.

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by David G. Radlauer,
Esq. -- dradlauer@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker Waechter
Poitevent Carrere & Denegre LLP, Laurie Michele Riley, Esq. --
lriley@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker Waechter Poitevent Carrere
& Denegre LLP, & Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Esq. --
tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com -- at Jones Walker Waechter Poitevent
Carrere & Denegre LLP.


HHH MOTORS: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida appeals
court on Dec. 3 affirmed a lower court's determination that a
putative class action brought against a car dealership is not
subject to arbitration on the grounds that a sales contract
superseded a retail purchasing agreement with an arbitration
clause signed just before.

The per curiam opinion from the First District denied a motion for
rehearing and certification from appellant HHH Motors LLP, which
does business as Hyundai of Orange Park, while granting its motion
for a written opinion.

Customers Jenny Lee Holt and Kristopher P. Holt filed the class
action alleging violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practice Act in regard to electronic titling/registration filing
fees charged by HHH Motors, according to the opinion.

HHH Motors moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in the
retail purchase agreement signed in 2010 for the Holts' purchase
of a 2007 Dodge Ram truck, but the trial court denied the motion,
concluding that a retail installment sales contract containing a
merger clause and signed immediately after the purchase agreement
constituted the formation of a new contract.

The installment contract, to finance the purchase and which lacked
an arbitration clause, superseded the purchase agreement, the
opinion says.

"And because the [financing contract] appeared facially complete,
no parol evidence could be considered to address alleged
ambiguities," the court added.

Public Justice Executive Director Paul Bland, who argued the
plaintiffs' case, said the ruling rightly held that there must be
an agreement between the parties to submit to arbitration and that
the court, not an arbitrator, must make that determination.

"The car dealer here wants to skip over these basic protections --
they want to jump right into forcing people into arbitration
whether there is an agreement or not," Bland told Law360.

HHH Motors had argued that it met all of the elements needed to
compel arbitration, holding that its right to arbitration vested
when the purchase agreement was signed and was not affected by any
subsequent pacts.

As in the trial court's decision, however, the appeals panel
points to language in the financing agreement that said, "[B]y
signing this contract, you choose to buy the vehicle on credit
under the agreements on the front and back of this contract."

It agreed with the trial court's conclusion that the financing
agreement and its merger clause was "sufficiently unequivocal" to
negate the purchase agreement's arbitration clause.

"HHH Motors is being held to the language of its own concurrently
signed documents," the First District's opinion said.  "If it
intended for credit buyers to be subject to the arbitration
clause, then it could have said so in the [financing agreement],
but did not."

The appeals panel did not dispute HHH Motors' argument that two or
more documents executed concurrently by the same parties in the
same transaction should be read and construed together, but it
said there was no dispute that the financing agreement was signed
second and found no legal error in the trial court's conclusions.

The First District also rejected HHH Motors' argument in its
motion for rehearing that its ruling conflicts with the Fourth
District's decision in Morse Operations Inc. v. Sonar Radio Corp.,
noting that the financing agreement in that case did not feature a
merger clause.

"The absence of a merger clause justified a different result,
there being 'no support in the record for the trial court's
conclusion that the financing agreement superseded the underlying
contract for this transaction,' "the appeals panel said.

Seeing no conflict, the First District declined to certify the
matter as a question of great public importance, but said it was
providing its opinion to explain its reasoning for potential
future use in that area of the law.

Judges Bradford L. Thomas, Simone Marstiller and Scott Makar sat
for the First District.

HHH Motors is represented by Jon Michael Lindell of Lindell &
Farson PA and Michael J. Korn -- mkorn@kornzehmer.com -- of Korn &
Zehmer PA.

The plaintiffs are represented by William C. Bielecky, Deanna L.
Blair of Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Paul Bland of Public Justice
and Brian W. Warwick of Varnell & Warwick PA.

The case is HHH Motors LLP v. Holt et al., case number 1D13-4397,
in the First District Court of Appeal of Florida.


HILLMAN GROUP: Faces "Santos" Suit in Cal. Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Hillman Group, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-09571 (C.D. Cal., December 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act.

The Hillman Group, Inc. owns, operates and maintains Hillman Group
key duplicating kiosks at thousands of places of public
accommodation, including Wal-Mart's supermarkets, nationwide.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. owns, operates, and maintains over
4,900 stores and clubs nationwide and has approximately 298 total
retail units in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael T. Harrison, Esq.
      THE SANTA CLARITA FIRM
      25876 The Old Road, #304
      Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381
      Telephone: (661) 257-2854
      Facsimile: (661) 257-3068
      E-mail: Mharrison30@aol.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces First Financial Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Financial Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated financial institutions v. The Home
Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03975 (N.D. Ga., December 15, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate
security and protection for its computer systems containing
customers' financial and personal data.

The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a
wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and
construction supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
      GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
      8 East Liberty Street
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 447-8400
      Facsimile: (912) 233-6584
      E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
      GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
      One Securities Centre
      3490 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 1050
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (770) 842-9700
      Facsimile: (404) 842-9750

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Prepaid Technologies Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Prepaid Technologies LLC, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03983 (N.D. Ga., December 15, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate
security and protection for its computer systems containing
customers' financial and personal data.

The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a
wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and
construction supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
      CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
      1380 West Paces Ferry Road, N.W., Suite 2100
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Telephone: (404) 467-1155
      Facsimile: (404) 467-1166
      E-mail: Ranse@conleygriggs.com

         - and -

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
              ffox@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      Laurence D. King, Esq.
      Linda M. Fong, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
      E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
              lfong@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      2113 Middle Street, Suite 208
      Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
      Telephone: (205) 238-6757
      Facsimile: (662) 236-1401
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
              smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


INTEGRITY STAFFING: May Not Pay Time Spent for Security Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warehouse workers who filled Amazon orders do not deserve payment
for time spent undergoing security checks, the Supreme Court ruled
on December 9, reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service.

Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro hoped to represent a class in the
federal complaint they brought against Integrity Staffing
Solutions in 2010.  Both worked in Integrity's Las Vegas-area
warehouses where they filled orders for Amazon.com.  Every day at
quitting time, Integrity forced the workers to wait in a long line
to undergo a thorough search and metal-detector scan.

Integrity said that the searches were necessary to cut down on
employee theft.  The checks could take nearly half an hour at the
end of the working day and the employees were not paid for the
time.  Employees also were not paid for 30-minute lunches, 10
minutes of which include walking to and from a cafeteria and going
through a security check.

Though Busk and Castro claimed that the unpaid security sweeps
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), U.S. District Judge
Roger Hunt found that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim
for compensation.

Though the Portal-to-Portal Act amended FLSA to generally preclude
compensation for activities that are "preliminary" or
"postliminary" to the "principal activity or activities" that the
employee "is employed to perform," the 9th Circuit found last year
that Integrity's screenings may be compensable.

Integrity petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari,
winning a unanimous and summary reversal on December 9.

The security screenings at issue here are noncompensable
postliminary activities.  To begin with, the screenings were not
the "principal activity or activities which [the] employee is
employed to perform." 29 U.S.C. Section 254(a)(1).  Integrity
Staffing did not employ its workers to undergo security
screenings, but to retrieve products from ware-house shelves and
package those products for shipment toAmazon customers.

"The security screenings also were not 'integral and
indispensable' to the employees' duties as warehouse workers,"
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

The decision continues that "an activity is not integral and
indispensable to an employee's principal activities unless it is
an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the
employee cannot dispense if he is to perform those activities."

"The screenings were not an intrinsic element of retrieving
products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment,"
Thomas added.  "And Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the
screenings altogether without impairing the employees' ability to
complete their work."

Justice Elena Kagan joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a brief
concurring opinion.

"As both Department of Labor regulations and our precedent make
clear, an activity is 'indispensable' to another, principal
activity only when an employee could not dispense with it without
impairing his ability to perform the principal activity safely and
effectively," Sotomayor wrote.  "Thus, although a battery plant
worker might, for example, perform his principal activities
without donning proper protective gear, he could not do so safely;
likewise, a butcher might be able to cut meat without having
sharpened his knives, but he could not do so effectively.  Here,
by contrast, the security screenings were not 'integral and
indispensable' to the employees' other principal activities in
this sense.  The screenings may, as the Ninth Circuit observed
below, have been in some way related to the work that the
employees performed in the warehouse, but the employees could skip
the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of
their principal activities being substantially impaired."

Sotomayor also agreed that Integrity's searches qualified as
"preliminary or postliminary" activities rather than principal.

"The searches were part of the process by which the employees
egressed their place of work, akin to checking in and out and
waiting inline to do so -- activities that Congress clearly deemed
to be preliminary or postlimininary," she wrote.

The case is Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, et al.,
Case No. 13-433, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.


JIDD MOTORS: Faces "Hood" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hood, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Jidd Motors, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-10024 (N.D. Ill., December 15, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week.

Jidd Motors, Inc. is a pre-owned car dealer in Des Plaines,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


KATHARYN B. DAVIS: Missouri Court Dismisses "Janson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted
defendant Katharyn B. Davis, LLC's motion to dismiss the purported
class action complaint filed by Christopher F. Janson pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits
false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with
the collection of a debt, and Section 1692f prohibits unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt; that
Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 535.020 requires that rent-and-possession
lawsuits be verified by affidavit; that Defendant Katharyn B.
Davis, LLC, a law firm, filed a false affidavit when filing a
rent-and-possession lawsuit in State court against Janson; and
that, therefore, the Law Firm violated the FDCPA.

Magistrate Janson ruled that the Plaintiff has failed to allege
facts, which plausibly could establish that the affidavit was
misleading within the purview of the FDCPA and that the affidavit
effectively conveyed inaccurate facts.  Given that the Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim in Count 1, the court additionally
found that Court 2, seeking class certification, is moot and that,
therefore, Count 2 should be dismissed.

The case is CHRISTOPHER F. JANSON, Plaintiff, v. KATHARYN B.
DAVIS, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:14CV709NCC (E.D. Mo.).  A full-
text copy of Magistrate Janson's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/4a3d3Hfrom Leagle.com.

Christopher F. Janson, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Simeri,
Esq. -- james.simeri@simerilaw.com -- at SIMERI LAW LLC.

Katharyn B. Davis LLC, Defendant, represented by Terrance J. Good,
Esq. -- tjgood@lashlybaer.com -- at LASHLY AND BAER, P.C..


KEYSTONE MERCY: Court Remands Flash Drive Suit to Trial Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the state Superior Court has vacated a judge's decision not to
grant class certification on claims under the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law to people whose information
was stored on an insurance carrier's unencrypted flash drive that
was lost in 2010.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the court sent the matter back to
the trial court to properly consider whether the certification
could be approved under the catch-all provision of the UTPCPL.

The panel determined, meanwhile, that the trial judge properly
denied certification on negligence claims due to a lack of
typicality of claims of potential class members.

Relying on a 2013 Superior Court decision, now pending before the
state Supreme Court, Judge Sallie Updyke Mundy, who wrote the
opinion in Baum v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan, said that, under
the UTPCPL claim, the lead plaintiffs did not need to show
justifiable reliance to the extent that fraud and deceptive
conduct was alleged.

The complaint, Judge Mundy said, "specifically alleged both
fraudulent and deceptive conduct."

She said the trial court's conclusion, that the lead plaintiff's
"motion to certify his UTPCPL claim as a class action failed due
to issues regarding reliance, was not correct to the extent
deceptive conduct was alleged."

Because the court dismissed the claim based on the lack of
justifiable reliance, Judge Mundy remanded the case for further
findings and conclusions regarding Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1702, which addresses the prerequisites to a class
action.

According to Judge Mundy, Avrum M. Baum, whose daughter is Chaya
Baum, a special-needs minor, sued the insurance carrier Keystone
Mercy Health Plan after an unencrypted flash drive containing data
from Keystone's computer was misplaced and never found.

The flash drive had private health information about Chaya Baum
that was protected from disclosure under the company's practices,
as well as federal and state laws and privacy rules.

The drive, according to Judge Mundy, contained partial Social
Security numbers of 801 people and seven complete Social Security
numbers.  It also contained medical identification numbers,
clinical health screening information, and names and addresses of
more than 283,000 people, Mundy said.

Keystone sent out notices regarding the loss to more than 285,000
people.

Judge Mundy said while Keystone had offered credit monitoring to
some of the people involved, it did not offer the service to the
Baums.  The Baums also never followed up with Keystone regarding
the notice, Judge Mundy said.

Along with an alleged violation of the UTPCPL, Avrum Baum's suit
included allegations of negligence and negligence per se.  He
filed a motion for class certification in October 2012.

During a hearing on the class certification issue, Baum called
Murali Krishna Chemuturi, a computer software expert, who
testified that, using Chaya Baum's member ID, he was able to
access her health information from database files.

However, on cross-examination, Mundy said, Mr. Chemuturi said he
was only able to obtain Baum's member ID through counsel, as he
was given a photocopy of her identity card, which contained her ID
number and other health information.  Avrum Baum, Judge Mundy
added, also admitted that neither his nor his daughter's Social
Security information was on the flash drive.

Concluding that the expert testimony showed that the loss of the
flash drive created no risk of identity theft, and that Baum
failed to show reliance in his UTPCPL claim, the trial court
denied class certification, Judge Mundy said.

On appeal, Judge Mundy found that the Baums failed to satisfy the
typicality requirement for class certification under the
negligence claims.  The expert, she said, did not show that
someone finding the lost drive would be able to identify Chaya
Baum or the vast majority of people's information on the drive.

However, regarding the UTPCPL claim, Judge Mundy said the trial
court failed to take into account the Superior Court's 2013
decision in Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Philadelphia
regarding justifiable reliance.

Although that case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court and
was argued before the justices in September, Judge Mundy said the
Superior Court's holding indicated that Baum did not need to show
reliance regarding the fraud and deceptive conduct claims.

"This court has recently held that, to the extent a complaint
alleges deceptive conduct under the catch-all provision of the
UTPCPL, a plaintiff need not show justifiable reliance to
recover," she said.

Judge Mundy vacated the trial court's decision regarding the
UTPCPL claim.

"It is not for this court in the first instance to make findings
and conclusions regarding this or the other Rule 1702 factors,"
Judge Mundy said.  "Therefore, we conclude the best course of
action is to vacate in part and remand to the trial court."

Mark D. Smilow -- msmilow@weisslawllp.com -- of Weiss Law in New
York said he thought the plaintiffs were "very pleased with the
reversal."

Rawle & Henderson attorney William C. McGovern --
wmcgovern@rawle.com -- said one of the most important aspects of
the case was that there is no indication anyone's privacy was ever
compromised.

"There's no indication the missing thumb drive was used by anyone
unauthorized to have it," Mr. McGovern said.


KWLT LLC: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Alvarez, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals v. KWLT, LLC d/b/a Platinum Plus, Case No. 5:14-cv-
07075 (E.D. Pa., December 15, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

KWLT, LLC owns and operates a nightclub located at 1251 Airport
Road, Allentown, PA 18109.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center
      Suite 211, 715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


LAZZARI FUEL: To Pay $4.6-Mil. to Settle Federal Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that three mesquite charcoal
companies will pay $4.6 million to settle a federal antitrust suit
accusing them of overcharging restaurants for lump charcoal.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup on December 4 tentatively
granted a settlement in Il Fornaio (America) Corp. et al. v.
Lazzari Fuel Co. et al.

The defendants, and their owners, were accused of overcharging
customers more than $8 million on millions of pounds of mesquite
charcoal.

Under the settlement, Chef's Choice Mesquite Charcoal will pay
$2.2 million, California Charcoal and Firewood $1.55 million, and
Lazzari Fuel $825,000 -- for a total of $4,575,000.

The class accused the defendants of overcharging them a combined
$8.26 million on 306 million pounds of mesquite charcoal.

The lower penalty for Lazzari Fuel is due its "weak financial
condition" and equals more than 82 percent of its total equity,
Alsup wrote.

The defendants must deposit all of the settlement funds into a
trust account by Dec. 15, 2015.  Lazzari Fuel and Chef's Choice
can make several payments over the next year while California
Charcoal must pay its settlement within 90 days of the preliminary
approval, Alsup ruled.

Once the companies pay their settlements, they no longer will be
liable for any class, individual or other claims regarding the
sale of mesquite lump charcoal, Alsup said.

The tentative settlement saves money on the substantial "risk,
expense, and complexity of continued litigation and trial" and
enables about 1,500 class members to collect settlement money
sooner and avoid the cost and risk of going to trial, Alsup said.

The class action commenced in November 2013 on behalf of "all
persons and entities in the United States who, between Jan. 1,
2000, and Sept. 30, 2011, directly purchased mesquite lump
charcoal from any defendant."

The class defines mesquite lump charcoal as charcoal derived from
the mesquite tree and sold for food-service or restaurant use.

Named plaintiffs were Il Fornaio, Oliveto Partners and The Famous
Enterprise Fish Company of Santa Monica.

Named as defendants are the three companies and their owners
Richard Morgen, Robert Colbert, Marvin Ring and William W. Lord.

Lord, who owns Chef's Choice, in 2012 pleaded guilty to violating
the Sherman Act, paid a $100,000 fine and served time in prison,
according to Alsup's ruling.

The case is Il Fornaio (America) Corporation, Oliveto Partners,
Ltd. and The Famous Enterprise Fish Company of Santa Monica, Inc.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Lazzari Fuel Company, LLC, California Charcoal and Firewood, Inc.,
Chef's Choice Mesquite Charcoal, Richard Morgen, Robert Colbert,
Marvin Ring, and William W. Lord, Case No. C 13-05197 WHA, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The case is Il Fornaio (America) Corporation, Oliveto Partners,
Ltd. and The Famous Enterprise Fish Company of Santa Monica, Inc.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Lazzari Fuel Company, LLC, California Charcoal and Firewood, Inc.,
Chef's Choice Mesquite Charcoal, Richard Morgen, Robert Colbert,
Marvin Ring, and William W. Lord, Case No. C 13-05197 WHA, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

A copy of the Court's Dec. 4 Tentative Order is available at
http://is.gd/BGbF5Hfrom Leagle.com.


LVNV FUNDING: Illinois Court Certifies "Casso" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, Pamela Casso, brought an action against Defendants,
LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services LP, and Alegis Group
LLC, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(e).  Casso moves for class
certification.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated Dec. 10, 2014, Judge John
W. Darrah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Casso's Motion, after finding
that Casso has satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a).

The case is PAMELA CASSO, on behalf of plaintiff and class,
Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES LP;
and ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-7328 (N.D. Ill.).
A full-text copy of Judge Darrah's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/rhvAtCfrom Leagle.com.

Pamela Casso, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin LLC, James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin LLC, Rebecca A. Cohen, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin
LLC, Sharon Goott Nissim, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, Llc
& Tiffany Nicole Hardy, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by James A. Rolfes, Esq.
-- jrolfes@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, David Ackland Maas,
Esq. -- dmaas@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith Llp & Timothy Robert
Carraher, Esq. -- tcarraher@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP.

Resurgent Capital Services LP, Defendant, represented by James A.
Rolfes, Reed Smith LLP, David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp &
Timothy Robert Carraher, Reed Smith LLP.

Alegis Group LLC, Defendant, represented by James A. Rolfes, Reed
Smith LLP, David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp & Timothy Robert
Carraher, Reed Smith LLP.


MARS INC: Calif. Court Grants Bid to Stay "Gustavson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mars, Inc., filed a motion to stay the putative action
lawsuit styled PHYLLIS GUSTAVSON, Plaintiff, v. MARS, INC., et
al., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-04537-LHK (N.D. Calif.), pending
the Ninth Circuit's decision in Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No.
14-16327 (9th Cir. filed July 14, 2014).

In an order dated Dec. 10, 2014, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendant's motion to stay the proceeding, concluding that it
would best serve the interests of the parties and judicial economy
to grant the Defendant's motion to stay these proceedings.

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/eDb10Cfrom Leagle.com.

Phyllis Gustavson, Plaintiff, represented by J. Price Coleman,
Coleman Law Firm & Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates.

Mars, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen David Raber, Esq. --
sraber@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, David Michael Horniak,
Esq. -- dhorniak@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP, Joelle Sue
Perry, Esq. -- jperry@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP & Richmond
T Moore, Esq. -- rtmoore@wc.com -- at Williams and Connolly LLP.

MARS CHOCOLATE NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Stephen David Raber, Williams & Connolly LLP, David Michael
Horniak, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Joelle Sue Perry, Williams &
Connolly LLP & Richmond T Moore, Williams and Connolly LLP.


MID-ATLANTIC HEALTH: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aiah Komba, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Mid-Atlantic Health Care, LLC, County of Montgomery, and John Does
1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-07104 (E.D. Pa., December 15, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mid-Atlantic Health Care, LLC owns and operates a skilled nursing
and rehab facility.

County of Montgomery is a municipality in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com


MIDAMAR CORP: Sued Over Beef Product False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal prosecutors say a food supplier falsely marketed beef
products to Muslims around the world as meeting strict halal
standards of slaughter.

An indictment alleges the Midamar Corporation in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, sold $4.9 million in beef to customers in Malaysia, Kuwait,
and elsewhere that didn't follow the practices promised in its
labeling and advertising.

Midamar and its directors, brothers Jalel and William Aossey, are
charged with conspiring to make and use false statements and
documents, sell misbranded meat and commit mail and wire fraud.
Also indicted is another company the brothers controlled, Islamic
Services of America, one of the few organizations approved by
Malaysia, Indonesia, Kuwait, and other countries to certify beef
for import.

Midamar is calling the charges a violation of the separation of
church and state.


NACOGDOCHES COUNTY: Faces "Manis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Manis v. Nacogdoches County Hospital District d/b/a
Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital, Case No. 2:14-cv-01120 (E.D. Tex.,
December 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to properly pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Nacogdoches County Hospital District owns and operates a hospital
located at 1204 N. Mound Street, Nacogdoches, Texas 75961-4061.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Coleman Skelton, Esq.
      SKELTON SLUSHER BARNHILL WATKINS WELLS PLLC
      1616 South Chestnut
      Lufkin, TX 75901
      Telephone: (936) 632-3381
      Facsimile: (936) 632-6545
      E-mail: sskelton@skeltonslusher.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: CVS Subpoenaed in Drug Misuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
GoLocalProv News reports that CVS has been subpoenaed in a class
action suit by former NFL players.

CVS has been subpoenaed in a class action lawsuit involving over
1,300 former National Football League players regarding the use of
prescription painkillers, according to the Washington Post.

On November 27, the Washington Post's Sally Jenkins and Rick Maese
wrote about the ongoing federal investigation into NFL painkilling
practices that was "triggered by the class action lawsuit filed in
federal court in May, in which more than 1,300 former players said
NFL medical staffs routinely violated federal and state laws in
plying them with powerful narcotics to mask injuries on game
days."

                          CVS Cited

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

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


NEW YORK: NY AG Warns Police on Killing Unarmed Black Man
---------------------------------------------------------
New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman won't reopen the
case of Eric Garner's fatal chokehold, or look into the stairway
shots that ended Akin Gurley's life.  But the next time police
kill an unarmed black man, Schneiderman wants that case on his
desk, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

Such authorization would apply only to future police killings of
unarmed civilians, but not any of the infamous New York City ones
that have sparked massive, daily protests for nearly a week.

Thousands of people have snarled New York City streets, highways,
bridges, shops and landmarks every day since a Staten Island grand
jury's refusal on Dec. 3 to indict the cop who placed a fatal
chokehold on Eric Garner, an unarmed black man.

Millions around the world have seen a bystander's video of Garner
repeating his final words, "I can't breathe," 11 times before he
died, in what the city's medical examiner ruled a homicide by
chokehold and compression to the chest.

Although the NYPD has banned chokeholds for more than a decade,
officer Daniel Pantaleo dodged charges on the first week of
December for using the maneuver.  Outraged New Yorkers reacted by
spilling onto the streets by the thousands in protests that have
not abated.

Schneiderman announced December 8 that he sent New York Gov.
Andrew Cuomo a letter seeking permission to probe all future
police killings of unarmed civilians and, "if necessary,"
criminally prosecute the officers involved.

"Nothing could be more critical for both the public and the police
officers who work tirelessly to keep our communities safe than
acting immediately to restore trust and confidence in the
independence of reviews in any case involving an unarmed civilian
killed by a law enforcement officer," Schneiderman said in a
statement.  "While several worthy legislative reforms have been
proposed, the Governor has the power to act today to solve this
problem.  I strongly encourage him to take action now."

St. Louis University law professor emeritus Roger Goldman, an
expert on licensing related to police misconduct, said in a phone
interview that a state sovereign has the lawful authority to
empanel multiple grand juries because the principle of double-
jeopardy applies only once a jury has been sworn in after an
indictment.

Schneiderman would not empanel another grand jury for Pantaleo for
"practical" reasons, however, because a federal investigation is
still pending, the attorney general's spokesman Matt Mittenthal
said in a phone interview.

Nor would Schneiderman's office second-guess the Brooklyn grand
jury investigating the police shooting that killed the unarmed
Akai Gurley in the stairwell of a housing development, Mittenthal
said.

Schneiderman's two-page letter to Cuomo notes that state
legislators have long called for special prosecutors to handle
police-brutality cases, rather than trust county prosecutors who
work closely with the police they are supposed to probe.

"One such bill, first introduced by Assemblyman Keith Wright in
1999 and most recently sponsored in the Senate by Senator Gustavo
Rivera, would vest power in my office to investigate and prosecute
any crime allegedly committed by a police officer," the letter
states.  "A similar measure, applicable only to offenses allegedly
committed by New York City police officers, was recently
introduced by Senator Kevin Parker.  A third bill, sponsored by
Assemblyman Nick Perry, would amend County Law section 701 to
allow a judge to appoint another District Attorney or the Attorney
General to act as a 'special district attorney' in criminal
matters where the judge finds that the county prosecutor is
'disqualified."

While Schneiderman framed his proposal around "public confidence,"
rather actual prosecutorial conflict-of-interest, several of the
public officials quoted in Schneiderman's statement said that
district-attorney bias in police-brutality cases is real.

"Recent national events have raised serious questions about the
ability of local prosecutors to bring charges against police
officers," New York City public advocate Letitia James said in a
statement.  "It is unrealistic to expect district attorneys who
regularly rely on local police to make cases to be absolutely
impartial when investigating police misconduct."

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, U.S. Rep. Jerrold
Nadler, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, Manhattan Borough
President Gale Adams, and more than a dozen other city, state, and
federal legislators supported the measure in separate statements.

Also applauding Schneiderman's announcement, the Center for
Constitutional Rights (CCR) noted that the attorney general's
proposal would build upon their recent legal victory against
racially biased policing.

"The proposed investigation is an important complement to the
Joint Remedial Process ordered by a federal court in CCR's
successful class action lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York, to
reform the NYPD's racially discriminatory stop-and-frisk
policing," executive director Vince Warren said in a statement.

Cuomo's office did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Hours after Schneiderman's announcement, U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder amended law enforcement profiling guidance to prohibit
discrimination based on "national origin, gender, gender identity,
religion, and sexual orientation."

The changes apply "a uniform standard to all law enforcement,
national security, and intelligence activities conducted by the
department's law enforcement components," Holder said.

The prior guidance, from 2003, applied only to race and ethnicity
in federal investigations.

"The new guidance also applies to state and local law enforcement
law officers who participate in federal law enforcement task
forces," the Department of Justice said in a statement.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Defective Vehicle Transmissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenai Batista, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-24728
(S.D. Fla., December 15, 2014), arises from the sale or lease of
more than one hundred thousand 2013 - 2014 Nissan Pathfinders that
are equipped with defective transmissions.

Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan vehicles in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald P. Weil, Esq.
      Mary Olszewska, Esq.
      WEIL QUARANTA MCGOVERN, P.A.
      200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Suite 900
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-5352
      Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
      E-mail: ronald@wqmlaw.net
              mary@wqmlaw.net

         - and -

      Richard C. Newsome, Esq.
      NEWSOME MELTON LLP
      201 S. Orange Ave. Suite 1500
      Orlando, FL 32801-3482
      Telephone:  (407) 648-5977
      Facsimile:  (407) 648-5282
      E-mail: newsome@newsomelaw.com

         - and -

      F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
      Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz III, Esq.
      Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
      CORY WATSON, P.C.
      2131 Magnolia Avenue
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Telephone: (205) 328-2200
      Facsimile:  (205) 324-7896
      E-mail: jtapley@cwcd.com
              rlutz@cwcd.com
              apittman@cwcd.com


NORTH CAROLINA: Inmate Suit Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Frank D. Whitney dismissed the Plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim in OMAR R. DUNN, Plaintiff,
v. LARRY DUNSTON, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, currently
incarcerated at Lanesboro Correctional Institution.

Plaintiff filed a class action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated prisoners at Lanesboro contending that, among
others, Defendants discriminated against him by housing him on a
unit that imposes standard operating procedures that are not
imposed upon similarly situated inmates and that prison officials
at Lanesboro violates their constitutional rights, equal
protection and procedural due process rights which create
conditions amounting to cruel and unusual punishment under the
Eighth Amendment.

Upon review of Plaintiff's complaint, Judge Whitney dismissed with
prejudice Dunn's class action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and denied other requests as being
moot.

A copy of the Order dated October 20, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/10wrfXQfrom Leagle.com.


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Securities Class Action Fully Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company has fully and finally resolved all potential direct claims
by members of the putative class of securities claimants through a
settlement effectuated through the Equity Plan, which became
effective on August 5, 2014.

Under the terms of that settlement, the Equity Plan provides for
full satisfaction of the claims of the putative class through (i)
$7,000 in cash, which was paid on August 5, 2014, (ii) 15% of the
net litigation recovery in the action against Proskauer, described
below, (iii) $5,000 in cash, payable following the entry of a
final order resolving the Proskauer action, (iv) $3,000 in cash,
payable by the reorganized Company on August 5, 2015, (v) proceeds
of any residual interest the Company has in certain director and
officer insurance policies, and (vi) any remaining cash in the
class E1 disputed claims reserve established by the Equity Plan
following resolution of all other class E1 claims. The settlement
proceeds will be held in escrow pending allocations and
distributions to members of the putative class to be determined by
the district court overseeing the Exchange Act claims.

The settled claims stem from the Company's filing of a Form 8-K on
October 22, 2012 disclosing that on October 19, 2012 the Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, on the
recommendation of management, concluded that the Company's
previously issued financial statements for at least the three
years ended December 31, 2011 and associated interim periods, and
for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012,
should no longer be relied upon. Shortly thereafter several
putative class action suits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Southern District") against the Company, its then President and
Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer, its
then current and certain former members of its Board of the
Directors, its current independent registered public accounting
firm, and underwriters of the Company's public offering of notes
in March 2010 (the "Offering"). The Company's former independent
registered public accounting firm was later added as a defendant.
Subsequent to the Company's filing for relief under Chapter 11,
these suits were consolidated and the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that does not name the Company as a defendant. The
consolidated suit is purportedly on behalf of purchasers of
Company securities between March 1, 2010 and October 19, 2012 and
purchasers of notes in the Offering. The plaintiffs allege that
documents that the Company filed with the SEC were defective,
inaccurate and misleading, that the plaintiffs relied on such
documents in purchasing the Company's securities, and that, as a
result, the plaintiffs suffered losses. The plaintiffs assert
claims under the Securities Act against all defendants and claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
against the then former President and former Chief Financial
Officer of the Company.

Following additional amendments on plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims
and motion to dismiss briefing, on April 28, 2014, the Southern
District denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims
filed by the then former President and former Chief Financial
Officer on the third amended complaint.

On July 2, 2014, the Southern District issued a scheduling order
for discovery, and discovery has now commenced. Under the terms of
the scheduling order, all discovery is to be completed by July 22,
2015. On October 21, 2014, plaintiffs moved to file a Fourth
Consolidated Amended Complaint adding claims under the Exchange
Act against the Company's current and former independent
registered public accounting firms. At the request of plaintiffs,
the Southern District adjourned the schedule related to class
certification and class discovery pending resolution of the motion
to file the Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint and any motion
directed against the Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The plaintiffs in the Southern District action filed a proof of
claim against the Company in the Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to a
settlement with such plaintiffs and the putative class on whose
behalf their claim is filed, their direct claims against the
Company are fully and finally resolved based on the Equity Plan
treatment.

Separately, certain of the defendants in the Southern District
have filed claims in the Bankruptcy Court against the Company for
indemnification or reimbursement based on potential losses
incurred in connection with such action. Certain of those
indemnification claims, asserted by former directors of the
Company, have been released pursuant to the Equity Plan. In
addition, the indemnification claims asserted by the Company's
former underwriters have been capped at no more than $1,500,
pursuant to orders of the Bankruptcy Court. All claims of the
defendants in the Southern District against the Company are
subordinated pursuant to Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and
are classified in Class E1. Under the Equity Plan, subordinated
claims against the Company are limited to recoveries from a
segregated reserve of $2,000 to be funded by the Company pursuant
to the Equity Plan. The Equity Plan and related confirmation order
do not permit any recoveries by the defendants beyond this $2,000
cap. Any amounts remaining following full and complete
satisfaction of all Class E1 claims, including claims of
defendants in the Southern District, will be distributed to
members of the putative class pursuant to the terms of the
settlement described above. The Equity Plan and confirmation order
foreclose the defendants in the Southern District from pursuing
any other or further remedies against the Company.

As such, management estimates the amount of its exposure with
respect to the actions pending before the Southern District
described above at between zero and $2,000.


PARTNERS REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Suit in Ontario Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Real Estate Investment Trust has been notified that a
Statement of Claim dated November 28, 2014 has been issued in the
Ontario Superior Court seeking certification of a class action on
behalf of persons who held units of the REIT on April 1, 2014
against the former interim CEO, Ron McCowan and several other
parties, including certain trustees of the REIT.  Partners REIT
itself has not been named as a defendant in the legal proceedings
which allege that the conduct of the defendants in connection with
the acquisition by the REIT of three properties from Holyrood
Holdings Ltd. in April 2014 caused harm to the plaintiffs.  The
Holyrood transaction was rescinded by the REIT and Holyrood in
October 2014.

Partners has certain indemnify obligations to its trustees and
officers (current and former) with respect to this claim, subject
to exceptions including where it is determined that there has been
a failure to act honestly and in good faith.  The REIT has
insurance which it expects to be applicable in these
circumstances.  Given that the REIT has not been named in the
litigation, the REIT does not believe it will be material to its
business and affairs.

                        About Partners REIT

Partners REIT is a growth-oriented real estate investment trust
focused on the expansion and management of a portfolio of 36
retail and mixed-use community and neighborhood shopping centers.
These properties are located in both primary and secondary markets
across British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec,
and comprise a total of approximately 2.5 million square feet of
leasable space.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Mediation Set to Resolve Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, 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 mediation was
scheduled for November 10, 2014, on possible settlement of the
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its
two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and
Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer.

On December 20, 2013, PhotoMedex, Inc. was served with a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its
two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and
Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The
suit, filed by Mr. Guy Ratz, a former employee of Radiancy
(Israel) Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, alleges
various violations of the Federal securities laws between November
7, 2012 and November 14, 2013, including that the Company and its
officers made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material facts concerning the Company's business. Two
other shareholders filed suit through other firms; the Asbestos
Workers Local 14 Pension Fund was appointed the lead plaintiff in
this case. An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
April 15, 2014.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case in its entirety;
briefing continues on that motion. The complaint seeks
certification of the putative class as well as an unspecified
amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. The Company
and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against
this lawsuit. A mediation on possible settlement of this action
has been scheduled for November 10, 2014.

At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the cases have only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.

PhotoMedex, Inc. (and its subsidiaries) (the "Company") is a
Global Health products and services company providing integrated
disease management and aesthetic solutions to dermatologists,
professional aestheticians, ophthalmologists, optometrists,
consumers and patients.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery Conducted in LCA-Vision Merger Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, 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 little discovery
has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or
claims made by plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits in
connection with PhotoMedex's proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision,
Inc.

Six putative class-action lawsuits were filed in connection with
PhotoMedex's proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision, Inc. Two of those
suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
and four were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton
County, Ohio. All cases assert claims against LCA-Vision, Inc.,
and a mix of other defendants, including LCA's chief executive
officer and directors, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade Acquisition Corp.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex. The complaints generally
allege that the proposed acquisition undervalued LCA and deprived
LCA's shareholders of the opportunity to participate in LCA's
long-term financial prospects, that the "go shop" and "deal-
protection" provisions of the Merger Agreement were designed to
prevent LCA from soliciting or receiving competing offers, that
LCA's Board breached its fiduciary duties and failed to maximize
that company's stockholder value, and that LCA, PhotoMedex, and
Gatorade aided and abetted the LCA defendants' alleged breaches of
duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief, unspecified damages,
and other relief. The Ohio plaintiffs agreed to consolidate their
suits and take the lead on this matter, although the Ohio Court
did not formally consolidate the suits until April 24, 2014. The
Delaware suits were consolidated on March 25, 2014; on or around
that same date, the parties reached an agreement by which LCA and
the other defendants agreed to produce certain discovery to the
plaintiffs on an expedited basis.

On April 30, 2014, the Ohio plaintiffs (with the Delaware
plaintiffs' concurrence) agreed to withdraw their motion for a
preliminary injunction and not seek to enjoin the stockholder vote
or the consummation of the merger in return for LCA's agreement to
make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. Those
supplemental disclosures were filed by LCA under a Form 8-K on
April 30, 2014. This agreement did not affect the terms of the
Merger Agreement or the amount of consideration LCA stockholders
would be entitled to receive in the merger.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the
lawsuits if the parties cannot enter into a formal stipulation of
settlement. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of
loss, cannot be reasonably estimated, as the cases have only been
recently initiated and little discovery has been conducted to
determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs.
Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent
liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in
the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to
record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters if the
cases cannot be resolved.

PhotoMedex, Inc. (and its subsidiaries) (the "Company") is a
Global Health products and services company providing integrated
disease management and aesthetic solutions to dermatologists,
professional aestheticians, ophthalmologists, optometrists,
consumers and patients.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Mediation Scheduled in D.C. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, 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 mediation was
scheduled for November 24, 2014 in the class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev
Rafaeli, Radiancy's President.

On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev
Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon
and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who
purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various
violations of state business and consumer protection codes
including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade
practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The
complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or,
alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing
in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli
was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy,
has not been served. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss
this case; that motion is pending before the Court.

A mediation has been scheduled in this matter for November 24,
2014. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend
themselves against this lawsuit.

At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.

PhotoMedex, Inc. (and its subsidiaries) (the "Company") is a
Global Health products and services company providing integrated
disease management and aesthetic solutions to dermatologists,
professional aestheticians, ophthalmologists, optometrists,
consumers and patients.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery Commenced in Calif. State Court Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery has now
commenced in the class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court
in the State of California, County of Kern.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was
served with a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior
Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was
filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair
products. It alleges various violations of state business and
consumer protection codes including false and misleading
advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach
of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks
certification of the putative class, which consists of customers
in the State of California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices.
The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees and other costs.

Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves
against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action.

At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.

PhotoMedex, Inc. (and its subsidiaries) (the "Company") is a
Global Health products and services company providing integrated
disease management and aesthetic solutions to dermatologists,
professional aestheticians, ophthalmologists, optometrists,
consumers and patients.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Plaintiffs' Counsel Appeals Israeli Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
plaintiffs' counsel filed an appeal of an Israeli Court's
decision.

The Company was served on July 29, 2014 with an application to
certify a class action, filed in Israel District Court for Tel
Aviv against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev
Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President
and Chief Financial Officer. Under Israeli procedures, an
application is filed with the Court, the Company had 90 days to
submit its response, and then the Court reviews the application
and the response and determines whether to certify the application
as a class action. The application, served by a shareholder of the
Company, alleges various violations of the Israeli Securities Law
5728-1968, including that the Company and its officers made false
and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose material facts
in its public reports concerning the Company's business, and
therefore influenced the Company's share price. The plaintiff
seeks class action status to include all purchasers of the
Company's stock between May 3, 2012 and November 6, 2013,
specifying an amount in monetary damages of 145 Million New
Israeli Shekels or $42,050,000. The plaintiff also seeks pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Israeli Court has rejected the service of process by
plaintiffs, noting that the agency upon whom service was effected
was not authorized to receive service for any of the defendants,
and that both Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath were not residents of
Israel for purposes of service of process. The Court also held
that the plaintiffs were in violation of key procedural rules
governing the filing and prosecution of such matters.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed an appeal of the Court's decision on or
about October 6, 2014.

The Company and its officers are already parties to a lawsuit
containing similar allegations filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 20,
2013, and intend to vigorously defend themselves against both
actions.  At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss,
cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated
and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of
any claim or claims made and any damages stated by plaintiffs.
Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent
liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in
the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to
record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

PhotoMedex, Inc. (and its subsidiaries) (the "Company") is a
Global Health products and services company providing integrated
disease management and aesthetic solutions to dermatologists,
professional aestheticians, ophthalmologists, optometrists,
consumers and patients.


POPULAR INC: BPNA Opposes Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") filed a motion in opposition
to plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend a class action complaint,
Popular, 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.

On November 21, 2012, BPNA was served with a putative class action
complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank, filed in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County).
Plaintiffs, existing BPNA customers, allege among other things
that BPNA has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and
payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint
further alleges that BPNA improperly disclosed its consumer
overdraft policies and, additionally, that the overdraft rates and
fees assessed by BPNA violate New York's usury laws. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest,
disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs.

BPNA removed the case to federal court (S.D.N.Y.) and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was
filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New
York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an
order granting in part BPNA's motion to dismiss. The sole
surviving claim relates to BPNA's item processing policy.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted
in the court's decision and order. On October 21, 2014, BPNA filed
a motion in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
the complaint.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.


POPULAR INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Quiles" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery is
ongoing in the putative class action complaint captioned Neysha
Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al.

Between December 2013 and January 2014, Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico ("BPPR"), Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") and Popular,
Inc., along with two executive officers, were served with a
putative class action complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al. Plaintiffs essentially alleged
that they and others, who have been employed by the Defendants as
"bank tellers" and other similarly titled positions, were
generally paid only for scheduled work time, rather than time
actually worked. The Complaint sought to maintain a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of
all individuals who were employed or were currently employed by
the Defendants in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, New York, New
Jersey, Florida, California, and Illinois as hourly paid, non-
exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any
time during the past three years and alleged the following claims
under the FLSA against all Defendants: (i) failure to pay overtime
premiums; and (ii) that the failure to pay was willful.

Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law on behalf of all
individuals who were employed or are currently employed by BPPR in
Puerto Rico as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other
similarly titled positions at any time during the past three
years.

On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. On February 24, 2014, the parties reached an agreement
to dismiss the complaint against BPNA and the named BPNA executive
officer without prejudice. The parties recently submitted briefs
for and against class certification, which are currently pending
resolution. Discovery is ongoing.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.


POPULAR INC: Motion to Transfer "Fernandez" Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 motion
demanding that the case Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., be
transferred back to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York remains pending to date.

On May 5, 2014, a putative class action captioned Nora Fernandez,
et al. v. UBS, et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies against various
UBS entities, BPPR and Popular Securities. UBS Financial Services
Incorporated of Puerto Rico is the sponsor and co-sponsor of all
23 funds, while BPPR was co-sponsor, together with UBS, of nine
(9) of those funds. The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary
duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract against all defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees.

On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs requested the voluntary dismissal of
their class action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a
virtually identical complaint in the US District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR) and requested that the case be
consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services
Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the
USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties.

Recently, the UBS defendants filed an opposition to the
consolidation request and demanded that the case be transferred
back to the SDNY on the ground that the relevant agreements
between the parties contain a clear and unambiguous choice of
forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular
defendants joined this motion. The motion remains pending to date.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.


POPULAR INC: Settlement in "Alvarez" Case Being Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the settlement
terms in the case David Alvarez, et al. v. Banco Popular North
America, are currently being discussed.

On May 6, 2014, a putative class action captioned David Alvarez,
et al. v. Banco Popular North America was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Plaintiffs generally assert that BPNA has engaged in purported
violations of Sec. 2954.8(a) of the California Civil Code and Sec.
17200 et seq. of the California Business Professions Code, which
allegedly require financial institutions that make loans secured
by certain types of real property located within the state of
California to pay interest to borrowers on impound account
deposits at a statutory rate of not less than two percent (2%).
Plaintiffs maintain that BPNA has not paid interest on such
deposits and demand that BPNA be enjoined from engaging in further
violations of these provisions and pay an unspecified amount of
damages sufficient to repay the unpaid interest on these deposits.
PHH Corporation, which acquired the loans at issue in this
complaint, has tentatively agreed to indemnify and tender a
defense on behalf of BPNA. The court recently entered an order
staying all substantive activity, including any responsive
pleading, until the initial conference scheduled for August 22,
2014. The parties have subsequently reached an agreement in
principle. The settlement terms -- which do not contemplate a
payment by BPNA -- are currently being discussed.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.


POPULAR INC: Faces "Valle" Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 Banco Popular
North America on October 7, 2014, was served with a putative class
action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. BPNA, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The complaint names the same plaintiffs who filed the
above-described overdraft fee class action suit. Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that BPNA engages in unfair and
deceptive acts and trade practices relative to the assessment of
ATM fees on ATM transactions initialed at Allpoint branded ATMs.
The complaint further alleges that BPNA is in violation of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E with respect to ATM
fees. BPNA is investigating the allegations and will respond to
the complaint as appropriate.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.


PORCAO GRILL: "Pinckney" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pinckney, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Porcao Grill Miami, LLC d/b/a Porcao, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Grimpa, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Porcao
Manager, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Grimpa Holdings, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, and Christophe L. Difalco, an
individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-24719 (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay and liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Porcao restaurant in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PTZ INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Legg" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Legg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PTZ Insurance Agency, Ltd. an Illinois
Corporation, and Pethealth, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-10043 (N.D.
Ill., December 15, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
unsolicited calls to the cell phones of the Plaintiff and others
using an artificial or prerecorded voice, as well as for marketing
calls made to persons who have registered their telephone number
on the National Do Not Call List.

The Defendants are insurance agencies with a principle place of
business at 3315 Algonquin Road, Suite 450, Rolling Meadows, IL
60008.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katherine Marie Bowen, Esq.
      Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
      Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
      Keith James Keogh, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD
      55 W. Monroe, Ste 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 726-1092
      Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
      E-mail: kbowen@keoghlaw.com
              MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com
              tsostrin@keoghlaw.com
              Keith@Keoghlaw.com


PYOD LLC: Court Grants Stay & Permits Interlocutory Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard L. Young granted the Defendant's
motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal and for stay
pending that appeal filed in STACY PATRICK, formerly known as
COMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PYOD, LLC, a Delaware LLC, and RESURGENT
CAPITAL SERVICES, LP a Delaware limited partnership, Defendants.

Defendant cited the criteria when the court may certify a case for
interlocutory appeal as follows: (1) it involves a controlling
question of law, (2) there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion, and (3) an immediate appeal from the order may materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

Judge Richard L Young granted Pyod's motion upon showing that all
the criteria to certify the case for interlocutory appeal have
been met and fully satisfied. In addition, the request for stay
pending review was also granted since Plaintiff raises no
objection on the matter.

A copy of the Order dated October 20, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/1wGykCmfrom Leagle.com.

STACY PATRICK, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson,
PHILIPPS AND PHLIPPS, LTD., John Thomas Steinkamp, JOHN T.
STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES, Mary E. Philipps, PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS,
LTD & David J. Philipps, PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS LTD.

Defendants PYOD LLC and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES LP represented
by Jeanine R. Kerridge, BARNES & THORNBURG LLP & John P. Boyle --
John.Boyle@lawmoss.com -- MOSS & BARNETT, P.A..


QUALITY RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit against Quality
Resources for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve denied the motion of Quality
Resources to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment.

Sarah Toney filed the class action lawsuit against the defendants
on Jan. 3, 2013. Quality Resources filed its motion to dismiss on
Aug. 21 for failure to state a claim.

Ms. Toney claimed on Dec. 8, 2012, she ordered three pairs of
Stompeez children's slippers as Christmas presents and made the
order via the website Stompeez.com.

The web order form required Ms. Toney's telephone number "for
questions about order," and Ms. Toney filled out the web order
form. However, she claimed she did not consent to receiving
telemarketing calls advertising other Stompeez services.

On Dec. 10, 2012, and Dec. 11, 2012, Ms. Toney received calls from
a number that she did not recognize and when she answered it,
"started with a distinctive click and pause prior to someone being
on the line, indicating it came from an automatic dialer that
dialed plaintiff's phone number and routed the call to a sales
agent when plaintiff answered."

Ms. Toney claimed when someone calls the numbers that called her,
they are directed to Quality Resources.

"Quality argues that Toney fails to state a claim for violations
of the TCPA because her allegations are 'conclusory and entirely
inadequate' and 'impermissibly lump the defendants together,'" the
order states.

St. Eve said in the order that Quality simply ignores the 16 pages
of allegations in the complaint.

"Those allegations adequately describe plaintiff's theories of
liability and each defendant's alleged role in the TCPA
violations," the order states.  "These allegations sufficiently
put the defendants on notice of plaintiff's claims and the grounds
upon which they rest."

St. Eve granted the motion to dismiss regarding Provell, finding
that under Delaware law Ms. Toney's claims against a dissolved
company cannot be allowed to continue.

The third amended complaint contains sufficient factual
allegations to plead a plausible basis for holding Sempris
vicariously liable for the alleged misconduct of Quality Resources
under a formal agency theory, but not under theories of apparent
authority or ratification, according to the order.

Ms. Toney is represented by Alexander Burke of Burke Law Offices
LLC in Chicago; Anthony Paronich of Broderick Law PC in Boston;
and Matthew McCue of the Law Office of Matthew McCue in Natick,
Mass.

Quality Resources is represented by Jeffrey Backman and Richard W.
Epstein of Greenspoon Marder PA in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.; and
Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- of Tabet DiVito
Rothstein in Chicago.

A status hearing is set for Dec. 9 to set a date for the close of
discovery.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number: 1:13-cv-00042


REDCO GROUP: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keisha Miller and Rahmese McKee, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. The Redco Group, Inc. d/b/a Developmental
Support Services, Case No. 5:14-cv-07068 (E.D. Pa., December 15,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Redco Group, Inc. owns and operates a residential facility
located at 2201 Ridgewood Rd., Ste. 310, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania
19610.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Koller, Esq.
      KOLLER LAW PC
      2043 Locust St Ste 1B
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 545-8917
      Facsimile: (215) 575-0826
      E-mail: davidk@phillyhometownlawyer.com


RES-CARE INC: Settlement Payments Expected Through Early 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Res-Care, 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 pre-tax charges
recorded in connection with legal and administrative matters,
including settlements in 2014 of communication practices and
wage/hour class-action lawsuits, as well as accrual of the
Company's best estimate of the anticipated settlement cost for the
Iowa matter, increased by $15.6 million during the nine months
ended September 30, 2014, compared to the same period in 2013.
Court approval and payment of certain settlements are expected in
late 2014 through early 2015.


RLI INSURANCE: NY Court Affirms "Stecko" Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York
unanimously affirmed the order granting Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case CHRISTOPHER STECKO, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellant, THREE GENERATIONS CONTRACTING, INC., ETC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant Three Generations Contracting,
Inc. failed to pay the required prevailing wage and supplemental
benefits owed to them. They further states in their affidavit that
they recalled working with at least fifty other workers and
established that the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable.

In its ruling against RLI's contention, the Supreme Court held
that the commonality prerequisite for a class certification is met
since all members of the class allege that defendant Three
Generations Contracting, Inc. failed to pay the required
prevailing wage and supplemental benefits owed to them. A class
action is the "superior vehicle" for resolving wage disputes since
the damages allegedly suffered by an individual class member are
likely to be insignificant, and the costs of prosecuting
individual actions would result in the class members having no
realistic day in court.  Plaintiffs have also satisfied the
additional factors set forth in CPLR 902 for class certification.


A copy of the Decision and Order dated October 21, 2014, is
available at http://bit.ly/1nLUxM8from Leagle.com.

Dreifuss, Bonacci & Parker PC, Florham Park, NJ (David C. Dreifuss
of the bar of the State of New Jersey, admitted pro hac vice, of
counsel), for appellant.

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (James E. Murphy of counsel),
for respondents.


ROCK CREEK: Trial Date in Class Actions Set in May 2015
-------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Court set a trial date for May 18, 2015 in class actions by
Francis J. Reuter, Charles Boravian and Marty Cole.

Three individuals, Francis J. Reuter, Charles Boravian and Marty
Cole, filed separate similar purported class actions on behalf of
putative classes of persons or entities collectively encompassing
those who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's
common stock between October 31, 2011 and March 18, 2013. The
first action was filed on or about March 25, 2013 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Francis J. Reuter v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al., E.D. Va.
Richmond Division, 13-00183-JAG (the "Reuter Action"). The Reuter
Action named as defendants the Company, its subsidiary, Rock Creek
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which is now known as RCP Development,
Inc.), and certain of the Company's current or former officers
and/or employees. The second action was filed on or about March
26, 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boravian v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al. D. Mass.
13-1-695-DJC (the "Boravian Action"). The Boravian Action named as
defendants the Company and Jonnie R. Williams, Sr. and was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The third action was filed
on or about May 7, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Cole v. Star Scientific, Inc. et
al., E.D. Va. Richmond Division, 13-00287-JAG (the "Cole Action").
The Cole Action named as defendants, the Company, its subsidiary,
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which is now known as RCP
Development, Inc.), and certain of its officers and employees.

In general, the complaints collectively allege that the Company
and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder as related to statements made regarding its past and
future prospects and certain scientific data relating to its
products, as well as related to unspecified private placements and
related party transactions engaged in since 2006.

The Reuter Action and the Cole Action have been consolidated and a
lead plaintiff was appointed by the Court in the consolidated
cases on June 21, 2013. Pursuant to a joint scheduling order in
place in these cases, plaintiff filed a consolidated operative
complaint on September 5, 2013 and defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated operative complaint on October 25, 2013.

Following full briefing and argument on January 7, 2014, the Court
indicated that it would not grant the motion at that time and
would allow the case to proceed to discovery, but ordered
additional briefing.  Also, the Court entered a scheduling order
for discovery and an order directing the parties to participate in
mediation before a Magistrate Judge. Defendants thereafter filed
answers.

Subsequently, the United States, on January 28, 2014, moved to
stay discovery in the case pending the completion or other
disposition of the criminal trial of former Governor McDonnell and
his wife. That motion was granted by the Court on January 28,
2014.

On February 12, 2014, the Court granted a joint motion by the
parties to stay all deadlines other than a court sponsored
mediation session and the issuance of the Court's opinion on the
motion to dismiss. On March 11, 2014, defendants filed a motion
for leave to submit new authority in support of their motion to
dismiss. On March 13, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion
and ordered the submission of additional supplemental briefs by
the parties. Those briefs were filed on March 19, 2014 and March
26, 2014.

On June 11, 2014, a mediation conference was held before
Magistrate Judge David J. Novak. On July 29, 2014, the parties
participated in a private mediation and are in the final stages of
a settlement dependent on certain material conditions within the
control of third-parties. There is no assurance that such
conditions will be satisfied to enable the parties to consummate a
settlement.  If settled upon the discussed terms, it is
anticipated that the settlement will be funded with insurance
proceeds and accordingly will not impact the Company's financial
position.

Following a status conference on October 10, 2014, which the court
ordered since the parties have not yet been able to finalize the
contingent settlement, the court lifted the discovery stay, set a
trial date for May 18, 2015, and ordered briefing on class
certification and for the defendants to refile their motion to
dismiss. Efforts to attempt to finalize the settlement remain
ongoing. If settled upon the discussed terms, it is anticipated
that the settlement will be funded with insurance proceeds and
accordingly will not impact the Company's financial position.


ROCK CREEK: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Class Action Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Court has taken the motion to dismiss the Consumer Class Action
under advisement.

On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a purported class
action naming the Company, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
GNC Holding, Inc., or "GNC," as defendants.  The case was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  Generally, the complaint alleges that claims made for
the Company's Anatabloc(R) product have not been proven and that
individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements
regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended
purposes of the product.  The complaint purports to allege claims
for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express
and implied warranties and unjust enrichment.  The Company has
agreed to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the
purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent
with that commitment, the Company has agreed to assume the defense
of this matter on its own behalf as well as on behalf of GNC.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March
24, 2014, and the Court heard oral argument on the motion on May
15, 2014. The Court has taken the motion under advisement. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
However, at the present time, it cannot predict the possible
outcome of these claims.  Accordingly, no amount has been accrued
in the consolidated financial statements.


ROOSEVELT FIESTA: Faces "Saucedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Saucedo, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. Roosevelt Fiesta Grill, Inc., and Carlos
Quezada, Case No. 1:14-cv-10057 (N.D. Ill., December 15, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAKS FIFTH: Sued Over Failure to Properly Display Return Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Shaouli, individually and on Behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-09590 (C.D. Cal., December 15,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly
display and post its return policy as required by California Civil
Code.

Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. owns and operates retail stores throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Paul Mankin IV, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN, IV
      8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone:  (310) 776-6336
      Facsimile: (323) 207-3885
      E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com


SANOFI: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Sanofi and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-9624, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Sanofi
securities between February 7, 2013 and December 3, 2014,
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sanofi securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 2, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Sanofi is a global pharmaceutical company that researches,
develops and manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals and
vaccines.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sanofi was making improper
payments to healthcare professionals in connection with the sale
of pharmaceutical products in violation of federal law; (2) Sanofi
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, Sanofi's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 6, 2014, the Company's media relations department
issued a statement announcing that the Company was investigating
allegations related to improper payments to healthcare workers.

On October 29, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed
a Form 6-K with the SEC, announcing that its Board of Directors
had decided to terminate Christopher A. Viehbacher from his
position as Chief Executive Officer of Sanofi. As a result of this
news, shares of Sanofi fell as much as $2.85 or almost 6%, in
unusually heavy volume, to close at $45.22 on October 29, 2014.

On December 3, 2014, it was reported by Bloomberg and other media
outlets that a whistleblower lawsuit against Sanofi has been filed
in New Jersey by former Sanofi paralegal Diane Ponte.  The suit
alleges that Christopher Viehbacher, the recently ousted CEO of
Sanofi, and other executives at the Company conducted a scheme in
violation of federal law to funnel tens of millions of dollars in
kickbacks and other incentives to get the company's diabetes drugs
prescribed and sold.  The lawsuit also claims that Viehbacher was
fired by the company's board in October "in part, because
Defendant Viehbacher was involved in the aforesaid illegal and/or
fraudulent activity," which allegedly went on "over the course of
many years."  Lastly, the suit alleges that Ponte was fired as a
result of whistleblowing activity in retaliation for bringing the
scheme to light.  These allegations come two years after the drug
company reached an agreement with the Justice Department and
several states to pay $109 million to settle claims that it
engaged in kickbacks by giving doctors free samples of an
arthritis drug as a means of encouraging them to buy and prescribe
the medication.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


SCE GROUP: "Gaskin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kieara Gaskin, Denise Miller and Tenia Stuckey, individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
proposed Rule 23 Class v. SCE Group Inc. d/b/a Sin City Cabaret,
Konstantine ("Gus") Drakopoulos and Kevin Wells, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09877 (S.D.N.Y., December 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime premium pay and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Sin City Cabaret located at 2520
Park Avenue, Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Robins, Esq.
      Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
      Robert David Lipman, Esq.
      LIPMAN & PLESUR, L.L.P.
      The Jericho Atrium
      500 North Broadway, Suite 105
      Jericho, NY 11753-2131
      Telephone: (516) 931-0050
      E-mail: robins@lipmanplesur.com
              schalet@lipmanplesur.com
              lipman@lipmanplesur.com


SILVERCORP METALS: February 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs hereby gives Notice, pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the
United States District Court of the Southern District of New York
that a Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court in
the class action, In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL CONSIST OF ALL PERSONS AND
ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SILVERCORP METALS,
INC. COMMON STOCK (stock symbol:SVM) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED BETWEEN MAY 20, 2009, AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 INCLUSIVE,
ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former
directors and officers of Silvercorp during the Settlement Class
Period, and any family member, trust, company, entity or affiliate
controlled or owned by any of the excluded persons or entities
referenced above.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will
be held on February 9, 2015, at 4:00 p.m., before the Honorable
Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
Courtroom 14B, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl St., New York, New York 10007-1312, for the purpose of
determining, among other things,: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the Class claims against the Defendants for fourteen
million U.S. dollars (USD$14,000,000.00) should be approved as
fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation
is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether the
application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; (4) whether the Lead Plaintiffs'
application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be
granted; (5) whether the Lead Plaintiffs' request for an incentive
award should be granted; and (6) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants as set
forth in the Stipulation filed with the Court.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Silvercorp common stock
between May 20, 2009, and September 13, 2011, both dates
inclusive, on the NYSE, your rights may be affected by this Action
and the Settlement thereof.  If you have not received the detailed
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion For
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing and
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of
charge by contacting the Settlement Administrator, by mail at:
Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims
Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914; by
Toll-free Telephone at: 800-766-3330; or by visiting the Website:
www.berdonclaims.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later
than February 4, 2015 establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you will be bound
by any Judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you
submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the Notice, by no later than January 19, 2015.  Any objections to
the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or attorneys' fees and expenses
must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, no later than January 19, 2015.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class: Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq.;
Pomerantz LLP; 600 Third Avenue; New York, NY 10016; Telephone:
212-661-1100; Toll-free Telephone: 888-476-6529.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED: December 3, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


SIRIUS XM: To Pay $3.8-Mil. to Settle Suits Over Subscription
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Radio will pay $3.8 million and change its policies on
automatic subscription renewals to settle to class actions filed
by 45 states and the District of Columbia, according to Mike
Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service.

In Nevada's filing for Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, Attorney
General Catherine Cortez Masto says 45 states and the District of
Columbia will share the $3.8 million settlement for Sirius's
"misleading, unfair and deceptive trades or practices" that,
without customers' consent of knowledge:

   * Automatically renewed subscriptions;

   * Billed, charged debit or credit cards or withdrew money from
     bank accounts;

   * Did not honor cancellation requests;

   * Made it difficult to cancel services;

   * Refused to refund or make timely refunds of cancellation
     requests for automatically renewed services; and

   * misrepresented that services would be canceled and refunds
     issued.

Sirius did not have to acknowledge that it did anything wrong.

It claims that it disclosed the terms of its automatic renewal
policy and properly billed and obtained payment for service
renewals.

The settlement applies only to Sirius XM's "self-pays subscription
plans" for individual consumers, and establishes several
compliance provisions.

The compliance provisions govern Sirius XM's policies regarding
free-trial and promotional subscription plans; advertising and
point-of-sale disclosures; automatic renewals; customer
cancellation requests; and complaint resolution.

The settlement also requires Sirius XM to select a facilitator
with expertise in consumer protection law who will that ensure
complaints and other issues are handled in a "timely manner."

The facilitator will be removed after six months or if a majority
of states' attorneys general from an executive committee
overseeing the settlement say removal is necessary.

Sirius XM also must create and maintain a record of eligible
complaints and regularly report on the resolution process to each
participating state.  The report must include information on the
type of complaint filed by each consumer; the consumer's contact
information along with any identifiable loss; and any resolution
made.

The attorneys generals of the 45 states and the District of
Columbia conducted an investigation of Sirius XM's automatic
renewal activities in 2010 and determined the company violated
consumer protection laws.


SONY PICTURES: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corona and Christina Math is, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-09600 (C.D. Cal., December 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to secure its computer systems,
servers, and data base that contain over 47,000 Social Security
numbers, employment files including employees' salaries, medical
information.

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. is the American entertainment
subsidiary of Japanese multinational technology and media
conglomerate Sony.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
      Khesraw Karmand, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1129 State Street Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 92101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
              kkarmand@KellerRohrback.com

         - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
      Amy N.L. Hanson, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Ave., Suite3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
              ahanson@kellerrohrbak.com


SOUTH STATE: Court Approves Settlement & Dismisses Rational Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
South State 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 court
issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing the case Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert H. Demere,
Jr. et al., with prejudice.

On October 11, 2012, a purported shareholder of Savannah filed a
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York captioned
Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert H. Demere, Jr. et al., No.
653566/2012 (the "Rational Lawsuit"), naming Savannah, members of
Savannah's board of directors and South State as defendants. This
lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
Savannah's common shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is
properly maintainable as a class action with the Plaintiff as the
proper class representative. The Rational Lawsuit alleges that
Savannah, Savannah's directors and South State breached duties
and/or aided and abetted such breaches by failing to disclose
certain material information about the proposed merger between
Savannah and South State. Among other relief, the Complaint seeks
to enjoin the merger. The Company believes that the claims
asserted in the Complaint are without merit and that the
proceeding will not have any material adverse effect on the
financial condition or operations of South State.

On November 23, 2012, South State, Savannah and the other named
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the
"Rational MOU") with the Plaintiff regarding a settlement of the
Rational Lawsuit. Pursuant to the Rational MOU, Savannah made
available additional information concerning the Savannah merger to
Savannah shareholders in a Current Report on Form 8-K.

On March 20, 2014, the parties entered into and filed with the
court a stipulation of settlement.  On August 4, 2014, the court
issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing the action with prejudice.


SOUTH STATE: Court Okays Settlement & Dismisses FFHI Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
South State 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 court
issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing the FFHI Litigation with prejudice.

On March 5, 2013, a purported shareholder of First Financial filed
a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Arthur Walter v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8386-VCN.  On
March 25, 2013, another purported shareholder of FFHI filed a
lawsuit in the same court captioned Emmy Moore v. R. Wayne Hall et
al., No. 8434-VCN. Each complaint named FFHI, members of FFHI's
board of directors and South State as defendants.

The complaints were purportedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of FFHI's common shareholders and sought a declaration that
the lawsuits are properly maintainable as a class action with the
named plaintiffs as the proper class representatives. Each
complaint alleged that FFHI's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to FFHI shareholders by attempting to sell FFHI
to South State by means of an unfair process and for an unfair
price and that South State aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. Among other relief, each complaint
sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the proposed
merger between FFHI and South State.

On April 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued an order
consolidating the two lawsuits into one action captioned In re
First Financial Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 8386-
VCN, and requiring the plaintiffs to file a single consolidated
amended complaint as soon as practicable. On May 7, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which generally
alleges that FFHI's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to FFHI shareholders by attempting to sell FFHI to South
State by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price and by
failing to disclose certain material information about the
proposed merger.

On July 16, 2013, South State, FFHI and the director defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "FFHI MOU") with
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the action, subject to the
approval of the court.  Pursuant to the terms of the FFHI MOU,
South State and FFHI agreed to make available additional
information to FFHI shareholders regarding the FFHI merger.  In
return, the plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice and not to seek any interim relief in favor of the
alleged class of FFHI stockholders.

On October 30, 2013, the parties entered into and filed with the
Delaware court a stipulation of settlement.  On January 24, 2014,
the court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the
settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice.


SOUTH STATE: Court Okays Deal & Dismisses 2nd Rational Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
South State 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 court
issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing the action Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert R. Hill
Jr. et al., with prejudice.

On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of South State filed a
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the
County of New York captioned Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert R.
Hill Jr. et al., No. 651625/2013, naming South State and members
of its board of directors as defendants. This lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of South State's
common shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly
maintainable as a class action with the Plaintiff as the proper
class representative. The lawsuit alleges that South State and
members of its board of directors breached duties by failing to
disclose certain material information about the proposed merger
between FFHI and South State. Among other relief, the Complaint
seeks to enjoin the merger.

On July 18, 2013, the court granted a temporary injunction
enjoining South State from certifying the vote of its shareholders
at its special meeting on July 24, 2013 to consider and vote upon
the FFHI merger, pending a hearing scheduled for the same date on
the defendants' motion to vacate that temporary injunction. On
July 19, 2013, South State entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Rational/FFHI MOU") with plaintiff regarding
the settlement of the action.  Pursuant to the Rational/FFHI MOU,
South State agreed to make available additional information to
South State shareholders regarding the FFHI merger, and the
plaintiff agreed to jointly request with South State that the
temporary injunction be lifted so that the results of the special
meeting could be certified without any delay or impediment. Under
the terms of the Rational/FFHI MOU, South State, the South State
director defendants and the plaintiff have agreed to settle the
lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims made by the
plaintiff relating to the FFHI merger.

On February 20, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement that was later filed with the court.  On June 3, 2014,
the court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the
settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice.


TAKATA CORP: Faces Defective Airbag Class Action in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group disclosed that class action litigation has been
launched on Dec. 4 with the Courts against the Takata Corporation
and its subsidiaries seeking financial compensation for all
Canadians whose vehicles may contain defective airbags.

On December 3, 2014, U.S. lawmakers openly chastised the Takata
Corporation for resisting a call by regulators to expand a
nationwide recall of vehicles containing the defective airbags.
Over 8 million vehicles have been recalled in the U.S. and an
estimated 400,000 have been recalled in Canada.

"This class action seeks Canada-wide compensation for vehicle
owners against Takata in relation to its defective and dangerous
airbags," said Tony Merchant, Q.C.  "Hiding safety information as
alleged in this litigation has no part of responsible corporate
behavior."

Anyone who wishes to obtain further information about the Takata
class action should provide their contact information at
https://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/takata.php

Merchant Law Group LLP has twelve offices across Canada, from
Montreal to Victoria.  Merchant Law Group is well known for
involvement in mass tort and class action cases in Canada, which
include successful class action lawsuits involving Toyota Sudden
Acceleration, Honda Civic Tires, Winners, Residential Schools,
Hollinger, Maple Leaf Foods, and many other class actions.

National class action lawsuits were launched against Takata
Corporation by Merchant Law Group on December 1 in Ontario, and
December 4 in Saskatchewan.

For further information: For media seeking actuality or comment,
please call Tony Merchant, Q.C. at 403-225-7777 or 306-539-7777.
For French media inquiries, please contact our Merchant Law
Group's Montreal office at 514-248-7777.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Transfer Venue of "Emerson" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, in an order dated Dec. 9, 2014, granted
Toyota Motor North American, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc.'s motion to transfer venue in the putative class action
lawsuit styled ANNITA EMERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR
NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-02842-JST
(N.D. Calif.).

In the putative class action, which was originally filed in the
Central District of California, the Plaintiff alleges that certain
Highlander vehicles designed, marketed, and sold by Toyota possess
defective power lift gates.  In support of his order, Judge Tigar
said that although many of the factors that courts apply when
considering a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a)
are neutral in this case, the Court is troubled by the appearance
of judge-shopping arising from the Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal
of the Central District action and immediate re-filing in the
Northern District.  Judge Tigar, accordingly, transferred the
action back to the Central District.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/cm13oCfrom Leagle.com.

Annita Emerson, Petitioner, represented by John A Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Robert Ahdoot, Esq. --
RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Theodore W
Maya, Esq. -- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot and Wolfson PC &
Tina Wolfson, Esq. -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- at Ahdoot and
Wolfson APC.

Juan Carlos Rivera, Petitioner, represented by Jack Samuel
Feltscher, Law Office of Jack S Feltscher.

Toyota Motor North America Inc, Respondent, represented by
Christopher Chorba, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Chelsea V
Norell, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP & Timothy William Loose,
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A. INC, Respondent, represented by
Christopher Chorba, Esq. -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn
and Crutcher LLP, Chelsea V Norell, Esq. -- cnorell@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP & Timothy William Loose, Esq. --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP.


UNITED STATES: Judge Approves SSA Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at Passman & Kaplan, P.C., in an article for FEDweek,
report that an administrative judge with the EEOC recently
approved a settlement of a nearly decade-old class action claim
against the Social Security Administration.  The suit against the
SSA alleged that the agency had inappropriately pursued a policy
that limited the ability of workers with certain "targeted"
disabilities to obtain promotions and advance their careers.  The
settlement provides for payment of $9.98 million by SSA, including
$6.6 million in payouts to eligible class members.

Class members in the suit include current and former SSA employees
with blindness, deafness, missing extremities, complete or partial
paralysis, seizure disorders and mental disabilities, who applied
for a promotion and made the best qualified list but did not
receive a promotion.  In addition to substantial monetary payouts
to class members, the settlement also provides for a number of
programmatic and policy changes with an estimated value of $20
million.

These changes will include increased training for SSA supervisors
and centralization of the reasonable accommodation process.
First-line supervisors will have the authority to independently
approve reasonable accommodation requests, but not to deny them.
Only the agency's central office will be able to handle
accommodations that an immediate supervisor cannot approve.

SSA will also ensure that new technology is accessible to disabled
employees.  Additionally, the agreement provides for the
institution of a new board to oversee the implementation of the
changes to SSA policy and practice.  The board members will
consist of representatives from the agency and from the group of
class members, and will be charged with ensuring that the goals of
the settlement to improve work opportunities for disabled
employees are promoted effectively.

This important settlement comes after many years of litigation.
The administrative judge originally certified the class in 2008;
however, the agency appealed the class certification, which the
EEOC ultimately upheld.  The final hearing for approval of the
agreement will take place in March 2015.

The settlement not only represents a major victory for a large
group of disabled federal workers at SSA, but also provides a
template for other agencies to voluntarily improve their programs
and practices to better serve their own disabled employees.

Passman & Kaplan, P.C., a law firm dedicated to the representation
of federal employees worldwide.  For more information on Passman&
Kaplan, P.C., go to http://www.passmanandkaplan.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Provides Updates on Endoscopy Center Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, 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, provides
updates on Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada Litigation.

In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in
compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against
a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory
that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of
an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent
physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an
outbreak of hepatitis C. The trial court reduced the overall award
to $366 million. The Company is appealing the case.

Company plans are party to 18 additional individual lawsuits and
two class actions, at various procedural stages, relating to the
outbreak.

In July 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court held that claims brought by
Medicare Advantage plan members are preempted by the Medicare Act,
which the Company anticipates will result in the dismissal of
seven of the individual lawsuits.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any,
that may result from these matters given the likelihood of
reversal on appeal, the availability of statutory and other limits
on damages, the novel legal theories being advanced by the
plaintiffs, the various postures of the remaining cases, the
availability in many cases of federal defenses under Medicare law
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the
pendency of certain relevant legal questions before the Nevada
Supreme Court. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits.


US POSTAL: Slapped With Interest on Underpaid Life Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
Because it "dawdled" for decades on paying beneficiaries, a
federal judge slapped the U.S. Postal Service with interest on
underpaid life insurance benefits, reports Jeff D. Gorman at
Courthouse News Service.

An arbitrator first ruled in 1986 that the U.S. Postal Service had
underpaid thousands of families of its deceased workers by failing
to calculate their salaries with cost-of-living adjustments
(COLA).

Nevertheless it was not until 2008 that USPS paid Pamela McKinney,
the daughter of a USPS worker who died in 1982.

In a federal class action for interest, McKinney alleged that the
USPS' payment delays amounted to a violation of the arbitration
award and its union contract.

So far, the USPS has paid over $70 million in COLA-adjusted
benefits to 16,575 survivors of deceased employees using the
addresses it had on file, the phone book and a commercial
database.

Since the USPS could not locate another 1,142 survivors, however,
it argued that the delayed payments did not violate the collective
bargaining agreement because no time frame was specified for the
payments.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper called this "plainly wrong"
in a Dec. 4 ruling.

"When life insurance initially became due and the postal service
did not adjust payment for the deferred COLA, it breached the
CBA," the ruling out of Washington, D.C., states.

Beneficiaries who were paid late, like McKinney, are also entitled
to interest, according to the order.

"The delay of years or decades harmed the paid beneficiaries by
depriving them of the use of the money over that extended period,"
Cooper wrote.  "Interest here is simply the damages owed for the
Postal Service's breach-by-delay."

The case is Pamela McKinney v. United States Postal Service, Case
No. 1:11-cv-00631 (CRC), in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.


VISA INC: Sued in Texas by 93 Merchants for Imposing Excess Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Visa and MasterCard abuse their market power to impose excess
fees on business owners, adding millions of dollars to their
operating costs, 93 merchants claim in a federal antitrust
lawsuit.

More than 80 percent of debit card purchases are made with a Visa
or MasterCard, lead plaintiff Bass Pro Group claims in the 92-page
lawsuit.

"Visa and MasterCard have adopted nearly identical rules, which
their member banks agree to and impose on merchants that accept
cards issued by those banks," the complaint states.

The lawsuit takes aim at interchange fees that, according to Bass
Pro, "are generally one of a merchant's largest operating expense
items."

"Interchange fees are imposed on merchants by Visa and MasterCard
for the privilege of accepting the issuing bank's card from a
consumer as a means of payment.  These fees are collected from the
merchant and paid to the issuer of the card," the complaint
states.

Nearly all card-issuing banks are members of Visa and MasterCard,
and they all accept the card companies' "default" interchange fees
that fix the fees at an excessive level, Bass Pro says in the
complaint.

Business owners are stuck paying the high fees, given that it
would not make sense for them not to accept Visa and MasterCard.

Though banks benefit from the high interchange fees, Bass Pro
says, the banks should be able to "independently" compete for
merchant acceptance of bank cards without having to abide by Visa
and MasterCard's anti-competitive rules.

"In competitive markets, interchange fees would move to
competitive levels," Bass Pro claims.

This would be a boon for consumers as well, Bass Pro says, because
the "high interchange fees levied on plaintiffs lead to increased
merchandise prices for consumers."

But University of Houston law professor Richard Alderman told
Courthouse News that he doubts a competitive market would have the
effect that Bass Pro imagines.

"I am somewhat doubtful that eliminating the contractual
limitations on pricing and terms will result in substantial
competition among issuers (all of whom reap substantial profits
under the current system), but there should not be restraints
imposed on those who want to offer different terms or lower
costs," Alderman wrote in an e-mail.  He directs the university's
Center for Consumer Law.

"I also don't see merchants lowering prices to consumers as a
result of any savings achieved through the resulting competition,"
Alderman added.

The merchants seek class certification and treble damages for
Sherman Act violations and for their losses from the interchange
fees.

Plaintiffs are a motley band of businesses, including Ross Dress
For Less, 1-800-CONTACTS, Joe's Crab Shack, Love's Travel Stops &
Country Stores and Scandinavian Airlines of North America.

Professor Alderman noted that the lawsuit was filed in East Texas,
which is known as a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction.

Neither Visa nor MasterCard responded to a request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com


WESTERN POWER: Parkerville Bushfire Victims Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Parkerville bushfire
victims may pursue a class action against Western Power following
the release of a report into the blaze that devastated Perth's
Hills region.

Fifty-seven homes, seven outbuildings and about 392ha of bushland
were burned after a rotten and termite-damaged privately-owned
power pole toppled over in Parkerville in mid-January this year.

A further six homes were partially damaged.

The EnergySafety report found Western Power contractors should
have observed clay deposits in the jarrah pole earlier that month,
indicating extensive and prolonged termite activity.  Some were
near the top of the pole and would have been visible to
contractors who connected a new cable to it in July 2013.

The report says Western Power should have spotted the damage and
notified the resident responsible for maintaining the pole.  But
Western Power says four of its contractors used visual and non-
intrusive methods -- using a pick to estimate the depth of good
wood -- to ensure the pole was safe to connect to the network, and
had deemed it sound.

Slater and Gordon lawyer Kevin Banks-Smith said it was clear that
had Western Power implemented suitable testing methods when
maintenance was performed, the extensive damage done by the fire
could have been prevented.

Mr. Banks-Smith said several property owners whose homes were lost
or damaged had engaged the firm, which was investigating whether
Western Power could be held legally responsible.

Stoneville and Parkerville Progress Association chairman Greg
Jones said many people were still suffering emotionally and
financially from the fire but the report would help victims start
thinking about compensation.

"We've always believed that Western Power and its contractors have
a case to answer to and the report shows who is largely to blame,"
Mr. Jones told AAP.

Opposition spokesman for state development Bill Johnston said a
thorough review into how private poles were managed was needed
because the government had still not responded to the problem.

"This accident may happen again tomorrow," Mr. Johnston said.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Rejects TCE Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
5News reports that a federal judge has rejected the certification
of a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation, wiping
out a proposed settlement between the company and nearby Fort
Smith neighbors who had filed complaints against Whirlpool.

Fort Smith property owners filed a class action lawsuit last year
against Whirlpool because of the company's contamination of nearby
groundwater with the chemical TCE.  The two sides agreed on a
settlement in July and have been trying to get the court to
certify it ever since.

U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes rejected the settlement on
Dec. 3 because the case does not qualify as class action,
according to court records.  Because the case does not meet the
requirements of a class action suit, no class action settlement
can be approved, Holmes said in his order.

Environmental activist Erin Brockovich came to Fort Smith and
spoke with nearly 300 people on March 26 about contaminated
groundwater following the chemical spill at the Whirlpool plant.

The TCE leaked from the plant and spread north to the neighboring
residences.  TCE was used as a degreasing solvent at the plant
between the late 1960s and early 1980s.

Multiple lawsuits were filed against Whirlpool seeking damages for
harm caused by the leaked chemical.

Some of the lawsuits were gathered together last year and earlier
this year as part of a class action lawsuit.  The settlement
reached in that lawsuit included the following stipulations:

    * Property owners inside the area bounded by Ingersoll Ave,
Brazil Ave., Jenny Lind Rd., and Ferguson St. will receive either
an amount equal to the devaluation estimated by the County
assessor or the devaluation as determined by an independent
property appraiser.

    * Class members outside this area will receive $5,000, and
possibly more in the future, if TCE is detected above threshold
levels in groundwater beneath their property.

    * Property owners agree to allow access to their property for
testing and remediation activities, record a deed restriction
prohibiting new wells on their property, and release Whirlpool
from property damage claims.

    * Each class member will receive formal notice of the
resolution, as well as an opportunity to opt out of the agreement.
A federal Court will be required to approve the agreement.
Whirlpool has agreed to pay court approved fees and costs incurred
by the class members.


WINDERMERE COURT: Settles Apartment Fire Class Action for $4.75MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the parties in a class action composed of tenants whose
possessions were destroyed during an apartment building fire and
subsequent demolition have reached a $4.75 million settlement,
attorneys in the case have said, pending approval from the court.

The plaintiffs in Schall v. Windermere Court Apartments sued the
building's owners, New Jersey-based brothers Sam, David and Aron
Ginsberg, and their property management companies over the
Windermere apartment blaze that occurred in West Philadelphia on
Jan. 10, 2012.

The settlement was reached three days into trial in Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas Judge Mary Colins' courtroom.  According to
the Ginsberg brothers' court papers, the defendants previously
offered to settle with the 100-plus class members for $1.5
million.

Thomas More Marrone and Ronald L. Greenblatt of Philadelphia-based
Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores represented the class
members.

"It was an incredible honor to prepare this case over the past
four years and to try in front of a jury on behalf of these
wonderful people," Mr. Marrone said.  "They were put out on the
street with nothing but the clothes on their backs.  They lost
everything they owned, but most importantly they lost their peace
of mind . . . now they have justice."

Andrew S. Kessler -- kessler@litchfieldcavo.com -- of Litchfield
Cavo, an attorney representing the defendants, declined to comment
beyond confirming that a court transcript reflected the settlement
agreement.

The plaintiffs alleged in court papers that the Ginsbergs did not
install a fire suppression sprinkler system in the apartment
building, against the city's fire code, nor did they identify
vertical air shafts in the building that purportedly caused the
fire to spread throughout the structure.

Additionally, the class members blamed the Ginsberg brothers for
failing to properly train a Windermere employee who silenced the
fire alarm by cutting power to it when it first sounded.

By deactivating the alarm, court papers said, the employee shut
off the alarm's zone feature that directs firefighters to the
origin of the fire.  According to court papers, fire crews fought
the blaze all night and into the early morning hours of Jan. 11,
2012.

The burnt-out Windermere remained untouched for weeks, without
repairs or stabilization, court papers said, adding the Ginsbergs
made no effort to recover their tenants' property.

"Instead, they chose to destroy the building along with all of the
class members' possessions which remained inside, except for the
very few items (no more than half-a-dozen in most instances),"
court papers said.  "As a result, the class members lost virtually
everything they owned."

The defendants' papers noted the building's fire alarm sounded and
all of its occupants were evacuated safely.

Defense papers also said the Windermere building complied with the
fire code and a sprinkler system was not required.

"As the fire originated in concealed spaces and spread throughout
these hidden areas, the presence of sprinklers would not have had
any impact on the ability to extinguish this fire," defense papers
added.

Responding to the class members' claims that the Ginsbergs should
have recovered the tenants' property, the defendants claimed the
city's Department of Licenses & Inspections declared the building
"imminently dangerous," making it illegal to enter.  L&I also
ordered the building's owners to demolish it within 10 days of the
fire.

The class members claimed the Ginsbergs, as the owners of
Windermere, were allowed to enter the property despite L&I
warnings.

The defendants responded in their papers that "even if entry into
the building was legal, the building had still been declared
'imminently dangerous' by L&I," which indicated a risk to "life
and limb."

"The defendants are not aware of a single decision by this
commonwealth, or the enactment of any legislation, imposing duty
on an actor that would require him to 'place life and limb in
peril,'" defense papers said.

Based on that, the defendants reasoned they had no responsibility
to salvage the class members' property.


WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Ritchie" Suit Over Defective Windows
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cathy L. Ritchie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Windsor Window Company d/b/a Windsor Windows
and Doors, and Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-04734
(D.S.C., December 15, 2014), arises out of the defective windows
designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and
sold by the Defendants.

The Defendants are engage in the business of designing,
developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling windows for
residential use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Todd Harrison, Esq.
      THE SANTA CLARITA FIRM
      25876 The Old Road Suite 304
      Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381
      Telephone: (661) 257-2854
      Facsimile: (661) 257-3068
      E-mail: mharrison30@aol.com


XL SPECIALITY: CA Seeks Guidance From Georgia Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals sought guidance from the
Supreme Court of Georgia on how to frame or answer the issues in
PEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC., f.k.a. Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. XL SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. NO. 14-11987, NON-
ARGUMENT CALENDAR, DOCKET NO. 1:13CV-02128-WSD.

Piedmont was named as a defendant in a federal securities class-
action suit.  Plaintiffs in the Underlying Suit and Piedmont
agreed to mediate the dispute. In anticipation of mediation,
Piedmont sought XL's consent to settle the Underlying Suit but XL
agreed to contribute no more than $1 million towards settlement.
Despite XL's position on the settlement amount -- and without
further notice to XL and without XL's consent -- Piedmont agreed
to settle the Underlying Suit for $4.9 million.

Piedmont filed a civil action against XL for breach of contract
and for bad-faith failure to settle, pursuant to O.C.G.A. Sec. 33-
4-6. On the other hand, XL filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
Piedmont was barred from filing suit by the plain terms of the
Excess Policy which contains "Consent-to-Settle" provision and by
the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Trinity Outdoor case.

In per curiam, the Appellate Court seeks guidance about Georgia
Law and certified questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia. The
entire record of the case and the briefs of the parties were
transmitted along with this certification to the Supreme Court of
Georgia.

A copy of the Decision and Order dated October 21, 2014, is
available at http://bit.ly/1FRRR5Bfrom Leagle.com.


YAHOO INC: 9th Cir. Adopts Correction Theory in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel on Dec. 10 seemed
open to holding company executives to a higher standard in their
communications with investors -- a precedent-setting change that
could give plaintiffs securities lawyers grounds to celebrate.
Federal securities law prohibits company executives from making
false or misleading financial statements, but current Ninth
Circuit case law doesn't impose on executives who unknowingly
misspeak a duty to later correct what they said.

That could change if plaintiffs prevail in a securities suit
against Yahoo Inc. that accuses executives of failing to correct
false statements about their investment in Chinese company Alibaba
Group Holding Ltd.  Plaintiffs argue that executives misled
investors in 2011, allowing them to believe Yahoo still controlled
shares of Alipay -- a lucrative Alibaba company similar to PayPal
-- when in reality, the shares had been sold for far less than
they were worth.  Plaintiffs say Yahoo admits executives knew by
March of that year they no longer owned the stock but never
corrected prior false statements.

Judges Alex Kozinski, Johnnie Rawlinson and Mary Murguia heard
arguments Dec. 10 from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd partner Susan
Alexander for plaintiffs, and Morrison & Foerster partner Jordan
Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- for Yahoo.

Judge Kozinski pointed out that several circuit courts, including
the First, Second and Seventh, have adopted what he called "this
new-fangled correction theory."

"It seems to me there's something to be said in following
something like this, to have federal law be uniform," Judge
Kozinski said.  "We have to either follow these other circuits, or
create a circuit split."

Mr. Eth, arguing for Yahoo, countered that the U.S. Supreme Court
has never ruled executives have a duty to correct false
statements.  But even if that were the law of the land, he said,
it wouldn't apply in Yahoo's case. Eth argued the statements in
question were mere corporate puffery and included comments that
the Alibaba CEOs were running the companies well, and that Yahoo
was interested in Alipay's long-term value.

Yahoo acquired 46 percent of Alibaba Group in 2005, which also
gave Yahoo significant interest in Alipay.  For years, Yahoo
executives consistently touted the value of Alipay to investors,
according to plaintiffs. But in 2010, new Chinese regulations made
it more difficult for foreign entities to own companies such as
Alipay.  As a result, Alibaba sold its shares of Alipay for $46
million -- an asset plaintiffs say was worth closer to $5 billion
or $6 billion.

Plaintiffs sued Yahoo in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  A year later Judge Charles
Breyer dismissed the case, agreeing with Yahoo that the statements
in question were vague and generalized claims, or puffery.

And Judge Breyer ruled other Yahoo statements were not actionable
because the executives never actually mentioned Alipay by name.

On April 19, 2011, Yahoo's then-chief financial officer, Timothy
Morse, announced Yahoo's financial results for the first quarter
of 2011 to investors on a conference call. Those Alibaba
valuations did "not include estimates of the value of Alibaba's
privately held businesses," Mr. Morse said, according to the
complaint.

Plaintiffs argue that Alipay was one of the "privately held
businesses," and Morse had neglected to mention Yahoo no longer
owned any company shares.

Judge Murguia suggested Breyer might be right, and Yahoo might be
in the clear, because Morse didn't specifically mention Alipay.
Alexander, arguing for plaintiffs, conceded Morse didn't name
Alipay on that occasion, but he had named the company in that same
context many times before.

"By then," she said, "a reasonable investor would have known
exactly what they were talking about because they had said it so
many times."

Mr. Eth scoffed at that argument.

"There's no case, no case in the Ninth Circuit or anywhere, that
supports that theory," he said.

Mr. Eth continued to say that Morse was not touting Alipay, by
name or otherwise, during that call.

Judge Kozinski challenged Mr. Eth.

"Why on God's earth would they say this does not include these
assets, unless it was to imply to investors this is something
pretty good?" Judge Kozinski asked.  "Why is that not touting?
What could it possibly be other than touting?"


ZIMMER INC: 5th Cir. Remands Implant Case for Evidentiary Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas has ruled a trial court erred
when it decided medical company Zimmer Inc. must retry a metal
implant suit because of alleged juror misconduct.

The Texas appellate court held that the trial judge in the 366th
Judicial District Court in Collin County, Texas, incorrectly
granted a new trial in this product liability suit, In Re Zimmer
Inc., brought by implant recipient Don Gustafson claiming faulty
implants in his leg left him permanently disable.

Writing for the court, Justice Molly Francis said it was granting
Zimmer's request for mandamus relief because it concluded the
trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial based
only on affidavit purporting to show evidence of juror misconduct.

Mr. Gustafson sued Zimmer alleging that the company's metal plates
put in his fractured leg after a motorcycle accident were
defective in design because they broke and caused him further
injury.  Mr. Gustafson requested a new trial after jury returned a
10-2 verdict in Zimmer's favor.

In doing so, Mr. Gustafson asserted that the jury had engaged in
misconduct and the jury's finding the Zimmer plate was not
defective was against the great weight and preponderance of the
evidence.  In support of his motion, Mr. Gustafson provided
affidavits from the two dissenting jurors alleging several
incidents of purported juror misconduct.

The appellate court ruled the trial court should have held an
evidentiary hearing in open court with Mr. Gustafson arguing that
the misconduct occurred, was material, and probably caused injury.

"A trial judge ruling on a motion for new trial based on
affidavits of juror misconduct alone cannot perform the critical
function of assessing the credibility of the affiants, who are
making serious charges about the manner in which their fellow
jurors have discharged their duties," Justice Francis said.

The court added it would not remand the case for an evidentiary
hearing.  The appeals court instructed the trial judge to vacate
its April 2014 order granting the plaintiff's motion for a new
trial.

"A trial court has considerable discretion in granting a new
trial, but that discretion has limits.  Its 'discretion should
not, and does not, permit a trial judge to substitute his or her
own views for that of the jury without a valid basis,'" Justice
Francis wrote.


                              *********

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  * * *