CAR_Public/141230.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 259


                             Headlines

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 7th Cir. Affirms $14-Mil. Settlement Approval
ACTIONLINK LLC: Stay Order Vacated in "Cheung" Suit
ALCOBRA LTD: Faces "Fialkov" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
AMERICAN EQUITY: Missouri High Court Upholds Case Dismissal
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Motion for Lead Counsel Appointment Due

BARRETTE OUTDOOR: "Nieberding" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
BECTON DICKINSON: Pays $22MM to Settle Hospitals Antitrust Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Suits Over Merger Plan with CareFusion
BILL ME LATER: Plaintiffs Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement
BROAD AND CASSEL: 10th Cir. Orders Removal of RICO Class Action

BRP US: Recalls Ski-Doo and Can-Am Kids' Hoodies
C&J ENERGY: Court Preliminarily Enjoins Merger for 30 Days
CANADA: Veterans' Group Fights Class Action Appeal
CARLYLE GROUP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
CHICAGO MESSENGER: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

COMFORT RESEARCH: Recalls Vinyl Bean Bag Chairs
CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN: Suit Barred by Statute of Limitations
CONVERSANT INC: Inks MoU to Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit
CRACKER BARREL: Still Faces FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y., Fla.
DAIKIN INDUSTRIES: Recalls Air Purifiers Due to Fire Hazard

DOLE FOODS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Mislabeling Class Action
DDP HOLDINGS: Faces "Feiertag" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DREAM ON ME: Recalls Incredible Play Yards Due to Choking Hazard
DUNE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Costello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DYCK O'NEAL: Faces Foreclosure Class Action in Florida

E & L CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Menjiva" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EATON CORP: Recalls Electrical Meter Breakers Due to Shock Hazard
ENBRIDGE INC: Settles 2010 Oil Spill Class Action
ESPN: Seeks Dismissal of College Athletes' Class Action
ETHAN ALLEN: Recalls Floor Lamps Due to Electrical Shock

FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Cyclocross Bicycles Due to Injury Risk
FORD MOTOR: Kansas Court Narrows Claims in "Knopke" Suit
GCI OUTDOOR: Recalls Stadium Seats Due to Injury Risk
GIGGLES INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Animated Monkey Toy
GILEAD SCIENCES: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Sovaldi Class Action

GOAL ZERO: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Settlement Okayed in Sinus Buster Lawsuit
HOME INSTEAD: D. Colo. Judge Denied Class Certification
HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Super Cub S Radio-Controlled Aircraft
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Grayson" Suit Over Defective Product

IEC ELECTRONICS: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Cert. Sought in VLT Gaming Suit in Canada
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Suits Over GTECH S.p.A. Merger Consolidated
J & G TRANSPORT: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Truckers' Class Action
K12 INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action

KAISER PERMANENTE: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
KBR INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action
KEBAB GRILL: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KIDDIE KORRAL: Recalls Girls Hoodies With Ponies
LAMPS PLUS: Judge Grants Final Approval to Class Settlement

LENOVO GROUP: Recalls Computer Power Cords Due to Fire, Burk Risk
LESSEREVIL LLC: Falsely Marketed Chia Crisps Products, Suit Says
LIBERTY SILVER: Settles Securities Class Action for $1 Million
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Dec. 2015 Jury Trial Set in Questcor Suit
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Denny v. Cadence Suit Voluntarily Junked

MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Inks Agreement to Settle Suit Over Questcor
MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Accused of Illegal Use of Shadow Insurance
MICROSOFT CORP: School Board May Apply for Settlement Funds
MIDWEST MEDICAL: Settles Class Action Over Medical Records

MIGDALAS IP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kinard" Suit Says
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Settles Faulty Brakes Class Action
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Violations of RESPA, FDCPA & ECOA
NIX SPE: Faces "Russi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Open Vest Sweaters Due to Burn Hazard
OW BUNKER: Danish Investors Mull Class Action Over Collapse
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Investor Class Action in New York
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Gets Citation in New York Class Action
POST HOLDINGS: Hearings in Antitrust Suit v. Michael Foods Set

PRO ARMOR: Recalls Doors for Polaris RZR 800 and 900 Utility Cars
RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(K) Plan
RAYMOND JAMES: No Class Yet in Suit by Regions Shareholders
RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Class Lawsuit by Municipal Bond Holders
RETROPHIN INC: Faces "Sandler" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

ROMAGICA CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SALSA CYCLES: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
SANTA ROSA, CA: To Appeal Ruling in Suit Over Impounding Policies
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls PowerPact J-Frame Circuit Breakers

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Litigation Continues
SEAWORLD PARKS: Sued Over Automatic Annual Pass Renewals
SEADRILL LTD: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
SHAPIRO BROWN: Faces "Burke" Suit Over Foreclosure Practices
SHELL OIL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action

SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Inks MoU to Settle Securities Litigations
SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Judge Refuses to Certify False Ad Suit
SMARTHEAT INC: Plans to File Summary Judgment in Securities Suit
SONY COMPUTER: Fails to Dismiss "Ladore" Suit Over Killzone Game
SONY CORP: Ex-Workers Express Frustration Over Data Leak Response

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Court Fees
SYNGENTA CORP: Nebraska Farmers Join GMO Corn Class Action
TAKATA CORP: Judge Stays Florida Airbag Class Action Proceeding
TESCO PLC: Faces "Davidson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
TESCO PLC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Court Denied Plaintiffs' Request to Enjoin Merger
TOWER RESEARCH: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation Contracts Price
UGI CORP: Antitrust Suits by Customers Transferred to Missouri
UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Immigration Class Action v. DHS
US CENTURY: Settles Derivative Class Action for $4.5 Million

US FOODSERVICE: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Okay
UVEX SPORTS: Recalls Bicycle Helmets Due to Head Injury Risk
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
VAM USA: "Durham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VELOCITY EXPRESS: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

VESTAS WIND: Portland Court Approves Class Action Settlement
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WEGMANS: Recalls Moody Face Stress Balls Due to Choking Hazard
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Pollution Class Action
WINDOWCRAFT INC: Recalls Custom Roller Shades Due to Injury Risk

WINNCOMPANIES INC: Judge Remands "Perez" Suit to Kern County
YALE ENFORCEMENT: "Jone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
YAMAHA: Recalls YZ250 Competition Off-Road Motorcycles
ZUFFA LLC: Illegally Monopolizes MMA Promotions, "Le" Suit Claims

* Food & Beverage False Ad Class Actions to Face Cert. Hurdles


                            *********


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 7th Cir. Affirms $14-Mil. Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh Circuit
on Dec. 9 refused to block a $14 million settlement resolving a
class action accusing Accretive Health Inc. of promoting a
positive forecast to shareholders before allegations of unlawful
collection tactics caused stock prices to plummet, after one of
the class members objected.

Affirming a district court's decision to approve the settlement,
the appellate judges said that further litigation likely would
have involved complex and lengthy discovery and expert testimony,
that the counsel who negotiated the deal during mediation are
highly experienced, and that the settlement was proposed by an
experienced third-party mediator after an arm's-length
negotiation.

The suit was filed in April 2012 by investor Linda Wong, who
argued that Mary A. Tolan, the company's CEO, and John T. Staton,
the chief financial officer, repeatedly delivered deceptive
statements that pumped up medical debt collector Accretive's stock
price while concealing the fact that the firm was "violating
health privacy laws, state debt collection laws and state consumer
protection laws."

In its September 2013 settlement with Wong, Accretive agreed to
pay $14 million to all investors who owned common stock between
Nov. 10, 2010, and Apr. 27, 2012.  James J. Hayes, an experienced
litigator who is representing himself pro se in his objection of
the settlement, argued that an Illinois federal judge erroneously
approved a plan of distribution that included class members not
damaged by the alleged fraud.

"He is mistaken," the Seventh Circuit replied on Dec. 9.  "An
examination of the formula used to calculate settlement
distributions reveals that only those who can show loss causation,
i.e., those that held their stock until March 29, 2012, will
receive a distribution.  The claim per share for those who sold
before March 29, 2012 will always be zero."

According to the complaint, the company was sending collectors
into emergency rooms to arrange payment before treatment was
rendered.  When those tactics were publicized in a New York Times
story, the company's stock declined from $24.06 per share to
$10.86 from March through April.

In December 2012, Accretive motioned to have the suit dismissed,
arguing that the complaint was built by "cutting and pasting whole
swaths" of unproven allegations from a putative class action filed
in Minnesota by Attorney General Lori Swanson.  Those allegations
should not be considered, the motion said, because that suit was
settled without an admission of wrongdoing.

Accretive contended the company was not guilty of fraud for
failing to mention the specifics of their day-to-day business.

Accretive settled the Minnesota case in July 2012. It was assessed
$2.5 million in restitution and barred from doing business in the
state for a period of two to six years.

Of the more than 34,200 potential class members in the instant
suit, only Mr. Hayes filed an objection, according to court
papers.  In granting final approval to the settlement and plan of
distribution, a district judge overruled Hayes' objection.

Mr. Hayes argued on appeal that a district court lacks sufficient
information to judge the fairness of a class action settlement
prior to ruling on a motion to dismiss; that the Seventh Circuit
should adopt a rule that attorneys' fees in class action
settlements are deducted from each claim paid by the settlement
fund at a set rate per share; and that the court should direct the
district court on remand to replace the lead plaintiff, the
Indiana State Police Benefit System, with the named plaintiff,
Ms. Wong, and himself.

But the Seventh Circuit decided on Dec. 9 that those three
arguments are waived on appeal because Mr. Hayes failed to raise
them at the trial level.

James E. Barz -- jbarz@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on
Dec. 9 that they are very pleased with the ruling.

"In affirming, the Seventh Circuit recognized that Robbins Geller
is 'highly experienced' in representing investors in these cases
and that [Hayes], who courts have noted is a frequent objector to
class settlements, was the only objector to an excellent recovery
for the class," Mr. Barz said.

Circuit Judges Joel M. Flaum, Daniel A. Manion and David F.
Hamilton sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.

Ms. Wong is represented by James E. Barz, Kevin K. Green, Robert
Robbins and Bailie Heikkinen -- bheikkinen@rgrdlaw.com -- of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Mr. Hayes is representing himself.

The defendants are represented by Leonid Feller --
leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- Andrew Clubok and Adam Humann --
adam.humann@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Linda Wong et al. v. Accretive Health Inc. et al.,
case number 14-2191, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Dec. 9 decision is available at
http://is.gd/XQ7KIdfrom Leagle.com.


ACTIONLINK LLC: Stay Order Vacated in "Cheung" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, vacated an order in the case entitled CATHLENE
CHEUNG, JEFF KOENIG, CHRISTIAN SANTOS, and SCOTT SOBCZAK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ACTIONLINK, L.L.C., an Ohio Limited Liability
Corporation, Defendant., Case No. 3:13-CV-01931-SI (N.D. Cal.)

On May 13, 2014, the Parties filed, and the Court signed a Joint
Stipulation and Proposed Order to Stay Proceedings. It provided
that, a currently pending previously filed case in Sacramento
Superior Court entitled Carl Adams, III, et al. v. ActionLink,
LLC, et al. (the "Adams Action"), would also be stayed in order
for the Stipulation and Order to be effective. The Stipulation and
Order case provided, as a condition subsequent for the Stay of
Proceedings and Certification Order in the Cheung Action to take
effect, that there be a Stay in place in the Adams Action.

There was no joint request to stay the Adams Action that was ever
submitted or granted.  The parties reached impasse over the class
notice, they have not been able to come to agreement and do not
anticipate being able to come to agreement over that issue in the
Adams Action.

In light of the failure of the occurrence of a material condition
subsequent to the Stay in the Cheung case, the parties now submit
the Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Vacate the Stay and
Class Certification Order, and ask the Court to set a Case
Management Conference.

Accordingly, the Court vacated, in its entirety, the May 13, 2014
Joint Stipulation and Order and vacates the stay of all
proceedings, and set the Case Management Conference on Dec. 12,
2014 at 3:00 p.m.

The Class Certification of the subclasses and causes of action
under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are granted. The named Plaintiffs
Cathlene Cheung, Jeff Koenig, Christian Santos, and Scott Sobczak
are appointed as class representatives. Craig Ackermann, Esq. from
Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C, Julian Hammond from Hammond Law, PC and
John Glugoski of Righetti Glugoski, P.C, class counsel in the
parallel state court Adams case, are appointed as class counsel.
All pending deadlines in this Action are vacated. The Parties
shall file a Joint Status Update on or before March 18, 2015,
regarding their plans for mediation, class notice dissemination
and/or the setting of further deadlines, including a trial date,
and they shall address at that point the outstanding issues
related to the inter-relationship between the Cheung and the Adams
cases.

A copy of Judge Illston's order dated November 10, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/xPO6a8from Leagle.com.

Diane Marie O'Malley -- domalley@hansonbridgett.com -- Dorothy S.
Liu -- dliu@hansonbridgett.com -- Jennifer M. Martinez --
jmartinez@hansonbridgett.com -- at HANSON BRIDGETT LLP, for
Defendant ACTIONLINK, LLC

Julian A. Hammond -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com - at HAMMOND LAW
PC, Craig G. Ackermann -- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- at ACKERMANN
& TILAJEF, P.C., Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


ALCOBRA LTD: Faces "Fialkov" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Fialkov, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Alcobra Ltd., Yaron Daniely, Tomer Berkovitz, and Ehud
Gilboa, Case No. 1:14-cv-09906 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Alcobra Ltd. is an emerging pharmaceutical company primarily
focused on the development and commercialization of a proprietary
drug candidate, MDX, to treat cognitive disorders including
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Fragile X Syndrome.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah R Gross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES BERNARD M GROSS, P.C.
      Suite 450, 100 Penn Square East
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 561-3600
      Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
      E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

          - and -

      Kenneth A. Elan, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN
      217 Broadway
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 619-0261
      Facsimile: (212) 385-2707
      E-mail: elanfirm@yahoo.com


AMERICAN EQUITY: Missouri High Court Upholds Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Mary R. Russell of the Supreme Court of Missouri
upholds a trial court order dismissing a lawsuit against American
Equity Mortgage Inc.

The appellate case is, THOMAS BINKLEY, HARLENE J. BINKLEY, ROLAND
E. STURHAHN, AND SUSAN J. STURHAHN, Appellants, v. AMERICAN EQUITY
MORTGAGE, INC., Respondent, No. SC 94152 (Mo.)

Appellants Thomas and Harlene Binkley and Roland and Susan
Sturhahn are property owners who refinanced their residential
mortgages through American Equity Mortgage.

The property owners filed a class action petition against American
Equity. They alleged that: (1) American Equity violated RSMo 2000
sections 484.010.2 and 484.020 when it procured or assisted in the
drawing for a valuable consideration of legal documents, including
deeds of trusts, notes, and/or a PUD rider; (2) that by engaging
in law business, the mortgage company committed an unlawful
practice in violation of the MMPA, and; (3) the property owners
contended that American Equity was unjustly enriched because it
charged for services it did not perform or did not perform
lawfully.

American Equity filed a motion for summary judgment and conceded,
for the purposes of the motion only, that it procured legal
documents within the meaning of section 484.010.2. It argued it
was entitled to summary judgment, however, because it did not
charge a separate, additional fee for document preparation. It
also contended that because the MMPA and unjust enrichment claims
were based on the same conduct underlying the property owners'
sections 484.010.2 and 484.020 claim, those claims failed as a
matter of law.

The trial court granted American Equity judgment on all three
counts. The property owners appealed.

In affirming the trial court's decision, Chief Justice Russell
said the property owners failed to demonstrate that they were
charged a fee for the preparation of legal documents. As to their
MMPA's claim, appellants failed to demonstrate that they suffered
an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of an
unfair practice, and judgment in favor of American Equity was
proper, and as to unjust enrichment claim, appellant presented no
evidence countering American Equity's assertion that it did not
charge for preparation of legal documents, there is no factual
dispute regarding whether the property owners conferred a benefit
to American Equity. The trial court did not err in granting
judgment in favor of American Equity on the unjust enrichment
claim.

A copy of Chief Justice Russell's judgment dated November 12,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/Bv7UKLfrom Leagle.com.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Motion for Lead Counsel Appointment Due
-----------------------------------------------------------
Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were
due December 9, 2014 in securities lawsuits filed against
Arrowhead Research Corporation and pending before Hon. Consuelo B.
Marshall, according to the company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The Company, Christopher R. Anzalone, and Bruce D. Given have been
named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed in
the Central District of California regarding certain public
statements in connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug
research.  Two suits are currently pending: Wang v. Arrowhead
Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890, filed October 10, 2014,
and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-
07911, filed October 13, 2014 (collectively, the "Securities
Claims").  Both cases are assigned to the Hon. Consuelo B.
Marshall.  Both plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages in
an unspecified amount.  Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel are due December 9, 2014, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.   On November 20, 2014,
a putative stockholder derivative action was filed in United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of
Directors in connection with the facts underlying the Securities
Claims.  The complaint, Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-
08982, seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.


BARRETTE OUTDOOR: "Nieberding" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the District of Kansas granted
defendants' motion to stay in the case Jonathan Nieberding, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. BARETTE OUTDOOR LIVING, INC and HOME DEPOT
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 12-2353-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.)

Plaintiffs filed a suit representing a class of purchasers of
outdoor railing products against defendants Barrette Outdoor
Living, Inc. and Home Depot USA, Inc. They alleged that the
railing products included defective plastic brackets which harmed
all members of the proposed class by causing them to pay more for
the products that they were worth.

Plaintiff filed before District Judge Daniel Crabtree a motion for
class certification, which was later granted in part and denied in
part.

Defendants filed their respective petitions for permission to
appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) and Fed. R. App. P. 5.
Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Pending Rule 23(f) Appeal on
October 7, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Defendants' petitions for permission to appeal on October 10.
Defendants then requested a stay of all further proceedings in the
case until the Tenth Circuit rules on their appeal of the class-
certification order. They argue that proceeding with in this case
while their appeal is pending will require them to bear the
significant burden and expense of providing class notice,
conducting further discovery, and preparing for a class trial.
They argue that these tasks will not only burden the parties; they
also will require the expenditure of significant judicial
resources, which could be unnecessary depending upon the outcome
of the appeal. And, if the Tenth Circuit decertifies the class or
alters the class definition in light of Defendants' appeal,
Defendants argue that proceeding with this case will create
substantial confusion among the class members.

Judge James granted defendants' motion to stay pending Rule 23(f)
Appeal. All proceedings in the case are stayed pending resolution
of defendant's appeal of the class-action certification oreder
before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties shall
promptly notify the court of the action taken by the Tenth Circuit
in relation to Rule 23(f) petition.

A copy Judge James' Memorandum and Order dated November 10, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/4DjQskfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathan Nieberding and Fredrick Aloysius Nieberding, Plaintiffs,
represented by:

     Andrew J. Schermerhorn, Esq.
     John M. Klamann, Esq.
     THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM
     4435 Main Street, Suite 150
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Telephone: (816) 421-2626
     Facsimile: (816) 421-8686

          - and -

     Mark P. Schloegel, Esq.
     William Dirk Vandever, Esq.
     THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, PC
     712 Broadway, Suite 100
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Telephone: (816) 221-2288

          - and -

     Ronald P. Pope, Esq.
     RALSTON, POPE & DIEHL LLC
     2913 SW Maupin Lane
     Topeka, KS 66614-4139
     Telephone: 785-273-8002
     Facsimile: 785-273-0744
     E-mail: ron@ralstonpope.com

Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary T.
Jansen, Esq., and Nicole D. Milos, Esq., at Cremer Spina
Shaughnessy Jansen & Siegert, LLC; James C. Morrow, Esq., at
Morrow, Willnauer, Klosterman & Church LLC.


BECTON DICKINSON: Pays $22MM to Settle Hospitals Antitrust Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company has paid $22 million in exchange for
a release by all potential class members of the indirect purchaser
claims in a consolidated antitrust suit by "Hospital Plaintiffs,"
according to the company's Nov. 26, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

BD was named as a defendant in the following purported class
action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of BD's
products, such as hospitals and retailers (the "Hospital
Plaintiffs"), alleging that BD violated federal and state
antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for
BD's products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members.

Case:        Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson &
                  Company
Court:       U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee
Date Filed:  June 3, 2005

Case:        Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson
             and Company
Court:       U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey
Date:        January 17, 2006

Case:        Medstar v. Becton Dickinson
Court:       U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey
Date Filed:  May 18, 2006

Case:        The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
                   Dickinson and Company
Court:       U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Date Filed:  March 28, 2007

The plaintiffs in each antitrust class action lawsuits sought
monetary damages. These antitrust class action lawsuits were
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation
in Federal court in New Jersey.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement that BD entered into with the
Hospital Plaintiffs on July 30, 2013 and following approval by the
New Jersey District Court (on a preliminary basis in November 2013
and on a final basis in March 2014), BD has paid $22 million in
exchange for a release by all potential class members of the
indirect purchaser claims related to the products and acts
enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal of the case with
prejudice.


BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Suits Over Merger Plan with CareFusion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company is facing several lawsuits in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County over its plan to merge with
CareFusion Corporation, according to BD's Nov. 26, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On October 5, 2014, CareFusion Corporation (CareFusion) and BD
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the
acquisition of CareFusion by BD. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, a subsidiary of BD (the merger subsidiary) will merge
with and into CareFusion, with CareFusion surviving the merger as
a wholly owned subsidiary of BD. Several putative class action
lawsuits have been filed against CareFusion, its directors, and BD
and the merger subsidiary in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in
the Superior Court of California, San Diego County. These lawsuits
generally allege that the members of the board of directors of
CareFusion breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that the
plaintiff alleges did not ensure adequate and fair consideration
to CareFusion stockholders. The plaintiffs in these actions
further allege that CareFusion and BD aided and abetted the
individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.


BILL ME LATER: Plaintiffs Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara L. Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois gave her
stamp of approval on Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Memorandum
In Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the
case entitled MISTY MURRAY AND SHAUN MURRAY, individually and on
behalf of a class similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
BILL ME LATER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant., No. 12-
CV-04789 (N.D. Ill.)

Defendant Bill Me Later is a nationwide purveyor of consumer
credit for merchandise purchased online and over the phone. It
allowed consumers who want to make purchases online to make such
purchases without a credit or debit card, and instead finance the
payment of their purchases over several months.

Unfortunately, the sheer size of Bill Me Later's business, coupled
with the high risk of default of its customers along with periodic
phone number inputting errors during the application process, have
led Bill Me Later to repeatedly call consumers who are not its
customers and to continue calling many of those non-customers long
after they inform Bill Me Later of its error.

The Class Representatives, Misty Murray any Shaun Murray, claimed
that Bill Me Later started calling them. The Class Representatives
tried repeatedly to get the calls to stop, despite the fact that
neither Class Representative has ever been a Bill Me Later
customer.

Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against Bill Me Later
and contemporaneously filed their Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiffs alleged that the autodialing technology used to call
them constituted an "automatic telephone dialing system," that the
calls were made using an artificial or prerecorded voice, and that
they never provided Bill Me Later with their express consent to
receive such calls.

After some discovery efforts, settlement negotiations with the
help of retired Chief Magistrate Judge Edward A. Infante resulted
in a $9,900,000.00 cash settlement plan.  Pursuant to the plan,
each settlement class member who submits a valid claim form will
be entitled to an equal share of the settlement fund, up to the
full $500 statutory amount available under the TCPA, after
payments are made for notice and administration costs, Court-
approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved incentive
payments to the Class Representatives. The total payment to each
settlement class member will depend on the number of valid claim
forms submitted.  Direct notice was provided by first-class mail
to approximately 308,807 consumers, and notice was provided by
email to an additional approximately 34,256 consumers. 41,865
Claim Forms have been received by the Settlement Administrator,
which makes it highly likely that the entire Settlement Fund, net
of attorneys' fees, administrative expenses and incentive awards,
will be distributed to the Settlement Class Members directly.
After presenting a preliminary settlement plant, of which the same
has been approved, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Class Representatives Misty Murray and Shaun
Murray, through Class Counsel, submit a motion for final approval
of the proposed Settlement of this class action. The settlement
administrator is Michael J. McMorrow of McMorrow Law, P.C.

For settlement purposes only, the following counsel are appointed
as Class Counsel:

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     161 N. Clark St., 47th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 216-5179
     Facsimile: (312) 275-7895

          - and -

     Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
     MCMORROW LAW P.C.
     One North LaSalle Street, 44th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: (312) 265-0708
     E-mail: mike@mjmcmorrow.com

A copy of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Memorandum dated
November 6, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/MrMIFZfrom
Leagle.com.


BROAD AND CASSEL: 10th Cir. Orders Removal of RICO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an appeals
court ruled that three defendants should be removed from a RICO
class action lawsuit.

The three-judge panel said as the class certification decision
pertains to Florida law firm Broad and Cassel, Ronald Gache and
Carl Romano, it reversed the district court's decision to certify
a class against them.  The panel affirmed the district court's
decision to certify the class against the other defendants,
according to the Dec. 8 opinion filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.

Circuit judges Paul Joseph Kelly Jr., Timothy M. Tymkovich and
Gregory A. Phillips voted in the majority, with Tymkovich
authoring the opinion.

"This case requires us to consider the certification of a proposed
class action to pursue claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act," the opinion states.  "A class
primarily composed of real estate borrowers sued a group of
lenders, claiming the lenders conspired to create a fraudulent
scheme to obtain non-refundable up-front fees in return for loan
commitments the lenders never intended to fulfill."

The plaintiffs claimed the lenders misrepresented their ability
and their objective to make good on the promises to meet certain
financing obligations as part of a scheme to entice borrowers to
pay the up-front fees.

"In addition, the class intends to offer generalized proof that
the lenders concealed the financial history of Sandy Hutchens, the
principal defendant, and his use of pseudonyms, to preserve the
superficial integrity of the operation," the opinion said.

CGC Holding Company, Crescent Sound Yacht Club, Harlem Algonquin
and James T. Medick filed the class action lawsuit on April 15,
2011, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

An order to dismiss the class action RICO lawsuit was filed on
July 19, 2013.  An appeal was filed shortly after.

The lenders contend that each class member will have to
demonstrate that it relied on the lenders' misrepresentations or
omissions to satisfy RICO's causation element, making a single
trial unwieldy and unworkable, according to the opinion.

"The lenders are wrong, but not because plaintiffs benefit from a
legal 'presumption' of reliance as identified by the district
court," the opinion states. "As we explain, RICO class-action
plaintiffs are not entitled to an evidentiary presumption of a
factual element of a claim."

The panel said it still agrees with the district court that a
class can be certified in this context.

"Exercising jurisdiction under Rule 23(f), we affirm the class
certification decision on modified grounds," the opinion states.
"We also reverse the district court's class certification decision
as to the lenders' law firm and lawyers, Broad and Cassel, Ronald
Gache and Carl Romano, and remand with instructions to dismiss the
claims against those defendants."

The defendants in the suit include Sandy Hutchens; Tanya Hutchens;
Jennifer Hutchens; H. Jan Luistermans; 1681071 Ontario Inc.;
Northern Capital Investments Ltd; 2800 North Flagler Drive Units
106-107 LLC; Estate of Judith Hutchens; 129 Laren Street Inc.;
3415 Errington Avenue Inc.; 367-369 Howey Drive Inc.; 3419
Errington Avenue Inc.; 17 Serpentine Street Inc.; 720 Cambrian
Heights Inc.; 331 Regent Street Inc.; 789 Lawson Street Inc.; 110-
114 Pine Street Inc.; 15-16 Keziah Court Inc.; 193 Mountain Street
Inc.; 625 Ash Street Inc.; 364 Morris Street Inc.; Santan Property
Management Inc.; 101 Services Road Inc.; 146 Whitaker Street Inc.;
Jbd Hutchens Family Holdings Inc.; JBD Holdings; 1697030 Ontario
Inc.; 308 Elgin Street Inc.; 1539006 Ontario Inc.; First Central
Holdings Inc.; First Central Mortgage Funding Inc.; Canadian
Funding Corporation; Realty 1 Real Estate Services Ltd.; and Alvin
Meisels.

The plaintiff is represented by John F. Head of Head & Associates
PC in Denver.

The defendants are represented by James D. Kilroy --
jkilroy@swlaw.com -- and Jessica E. Yates -- jyates@swlaw.com --
of Snell & Wilmer LLP in Denver; Steven A. Klenda of Adroit
Advocates LLC in Denver; and John M. Palmeri, Heather K. Kelly and
Greg S. Hearing of Gordon & Rees LLP in Denver.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit case number: 13-1255

A copy of the Tenth Circuit's decision dated Dec. 8 is available
at http://is.gd/yyhzoYfrom Leagle.com.


BRP US: Recalls Ski-Doo and Can-Am Kids' Hoodies
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BRP U.S. Inc., of Sturtevant, Wis., announced a voluntary recall
of about 3,100 in the U.S. and 5,100 in Canada Kid's Hoodies.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The hoodies have a drawstring around the neck area which poses a
strangulation hazard to children.  Drawstrings can become
entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus
doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation
and/or entanglement hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.
In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves 14 styles of Ski-Doo or Can-Am kids' hooded
sweatshirts for boys and girls.  They were sold in kids' sizes 2
through 12.  The hoodies are cotton/polyester blend.  There is a
drawstring in the hood of the garment.  Colors include raspberry,
yellow, heather, charcoal gray and black. "Ski Doo" or "Can-Am" is
printed on the front.  Recalled style numbers include: 286485,
453215, 453265, 453320, 453321, 453375, 453376, 453464, 453618,
453658, 453660, 453661, 453707 and 453708.  The style numbers
indicating the different graphic treatments are printed on the
white care label that is sewn into the neck and side of the
garment.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/jwgwyN

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at BRP
authorized dealerships nationwide and in the BRP online stores at
www.can-am.brp.com and www.ski-doo.com from April 2007 through
December 2014 for between $40 and $65.

Consumers should immediately take the hoodie away from kids and
remove the drawstring from the sweatshirt to eliminate the hazard
or return it to an authorized BRP dealer for a full refund.


C&J ENERGY: Court Preliminarily Enjoins Merger for 30 Days
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling preliminarily
enjoining C&J Energy Services, Inc. and Nabors Industries Ltd.
from proceeding with a merger for a period of 30 days, according
to C&J Energy's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

C&J Energy Services, Inc., the members of the company's board of
directors, including the company's management directors, together
with Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Nabors Red Lion Limited ("Red Lion"), were sued in a
putative shareholder class action in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery") by certain
stockholders related to the company's entry into that certain
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 25, 2014, among
Nabors, Red Lion and the Company (the "Merger Agreement"). The
case is styled City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. v. C&J Energy Services, Inc.,
et al.; C.A. No. 9980-VCN. The complaint alleges that the
company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and
that all of the named defendants aided and abetted these alleged
violations. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including an
injunction against the consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, together with attorney's
fees and costs. On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction.

A hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief
was held on November 24, 2014, and on that same day the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling preliminarily enjoining the
parties from proceeding with the merger for a period of 30 days,
during which the company's board of directors was ordered to
solicit competing proposals from other potential buyers. The
manner in which the company will be required to solicit competing
proposals has not yet been established by the Court of Chancery.

On November 25, 2014, the company issued a press release
announcing the ruling of the Court of Chancery.


CANADA: Veterans' Group Fights Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Kristi Alexandra, writing for The New, reports that six veterans
and their legal team, with the help of White Rock-based Equitas
Society, are fighting an appeal by the federal government to throw
out a class-action lawsuit the society filed in September 2013.

The appellant case, which is now being heard in the B.C. Court of
Appeal, began on Dec. 3.

The veterans were fighting the enaction of the New Veterans
Charter that was passed in 2006, which gave veterans of the
post-911 Afghanistan war one-time lump sum payouts instead of the
lifetime disability pensions they had been promised when going
into war.

"They (the federal government) asked the courts to strike down the
action, saying that it's a frivolous complaint and action, and the
BC Supreme Court did not agree with them and now they're rearguing
it," Jim Scott, president of the Equitas Society, explained.

Scott's son, Dan, is one of the six representative plaintiffs in
the case, who received a one-time payout of C$41,500 for his
injuries, which included a fractured rib, collapsed lung, and
damage to his kidney, spleen and pancreas.

"They're in the courts, they're getting the best advice and action
available in Canada, and that's all we can guarantee them," Scott
said of the veterans.

"We cant guarantee they're going to win, we can't guarantee the
government is going to change it.  All we can say is that their
rights are going to be represented."

Veterans Affairs recently announced it would be pouring C$200
million into "expanded mental health initiatives" for veterans.

According to Gerry Lenoski, vice-president of Equitas Society, it
currently takes Veterans Affairs eight months to pair mentally-
injured veterans with a case manager. That, he says, is a "glacial
pace."

As for the 14 recommendations that were made to the New Veterans
Charter, which Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino said the
government accepts, Mr. Lenoski's "confidence is not strong."

Both Scott and Lenoski, however, said they're not of the
population calling for the resignation of Fantino, which NDP
leader Thomas Mulcair has done.

"We have no reason to believe that he doesn't have a soft spot for
veterans," Mr. Lenoski said of Mr. Fantino.

Mr. Scott also noted that Equitas would "not venture into making
it personal."

"When you make it personal, it makes it a lot harder to negotiate
an actual settlement at a later date.  You don't see lawyers
usually go out and make inflammatory statements that, at one
point, they're eventually going to have to sit across the table
from.  It's not in their clients' best interest," Mr. Scott said.

Major Mark Campbell, another one of the six representative
plaintiffs, recently made headlines when he came out about the
loss of his two legs as well as his lifetime pension.  Major
Campbell flew into Vancouver for the appeal.

"I heard from Mark Campbell, and it's not surprising, but (the
veterans) are insulted that their government not only doesn't have
their back with a fair shake, but that the government should be
trying to throw out their earliest stage attempt to find out how
society really wants to treat them," Mr. Lenoski said.

The class action suit has not yet been certified, but Mr. Lenoski
believes that Equitas is getting close to seeing the case proceed.

"The government tried to throw out the whole idea of dealing with
this in the first place and the court said, 'Let's get on with
this.'  This was two years ago," he said.

If the federal government wins their appeal, Mr. Lenoski confirmed
Equitas is prepared to fight that decision as well.


CARLYLE GROUP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Samson, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employee v. The Carlyle Group, L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-02124
(D.D.C., December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage
and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Carlyle Group, L.P. is an American-based global asset
management firm, specializing in private equity, based in
Washington D.C.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Stuart Hyman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF NEIL S. HYMAN, LLC
      4416 East West Highway, 4th Floor
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (301) 841-7105
      Facsimile: (301) 986-1301
      E-mail: neil@neilhymanlaw.com


CHICAGO MESSENGER: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Perez, Ivan Calderon, Tommy Epperson, Armando Bermudez,
Alfredo Figueroa, Mario Parra, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Chicago
Messenger Service, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-10082 (N.D. Ill.,
December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Chicago Messenger Service, Inc. provides messenger and delivery
services in the Chicago land area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


COMFORT RESEARCH: Recalls Vinyl Bean Bag Chairs
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Comfort Research, LLC, of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a
voluntary recall of about 125,000 Bean Bag Chairs.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The zippers on the bean bag chairs can be opened by children who
can then crawl inside, become entrapped, suffocate or choke on the
bean bag chair's foam beads.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves vinyl polystyrene-filled bean bag chairs with
a single zipper on the exterior cover.  The round vinyl bean bag
chairs measure 88 and 98 inches in diameter.  Colors and patterns
included in the recall are black, hot pink, lime, purple, royal
blue, ruby red, and baseball, basketball, football and soccer
ball.  A tag sewn into bean bag chair's cover seam reads "Made By
Comfort Research" and "100% Polystyrene."

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/4brOOq

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and China and sold
at Burlington Coat Factory, Kroger, Meijer and other retail stores
nationwide and online at Amazon, Bean Bag Company, Groupon, Kohls,
Target, Toys R Us, Walmart, Wayfair and other online retailers
between January 2010 and October 2013 for between $30 and $40.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled bean bag chairs
from children and check them for zippers that can be opened.
Consumers can contact Comfort Research for instructions to
permanently disable the zipper.


CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN: Suit Barred by Statute of Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
appeals court has ruled that the plaintiffs' claims in a class
action lawsuit against the Congregation of Christian Brothers were
barred by the statute of limitations.

Because the bulk of the plaintiffs' claims against CCB, the Order
of the Sisters of Mercy Catholic Religious Order and Mercy
International Association are no longer cognizable under the Alien
Tort Statute, and the remaining federal claims are barred by the
statute of limitations, the panel affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the class action lawsuit, according to an opinion
filed Dec. 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The appeal was argued on June 19, 2012.

Circuit judges Guido Calabresi, Gerard E. Lynch and Raymond Lohier
Jr. voted in the majority, with Lynch authoring the opinion.

The three plaintiffs claimed as young children they were removed
from their native lands and transported to Australia, where they
were badly mistreated.

Given the assumption that the ATS has a 10-year statute of
limitations, the plaintiffs' human trafficking claim is untimely,
the panel ruled.

"The complaint makes plain that the actions allegedly constituting
trafficking took place more than fifty years ago, when plaintiffs
were transported from their homes in Europe to Australia," the
opinion states.  "Consequently, for plaintiffs' claim to be
considered within the limitations period, plaintiffs must
demonstrate that they did not discover their cause of action --
and could not have discovered it with due diligence -- until less
than ten years before bringing suit."

The plaintiffs argued that the release of the Australian Senate
Report in 2001 was the triggering event that allowed them to
discover their cause of action.

"That argument is undermined, however, by the allegations in the
complaint, which make clear that, at least by the time plaintiffs
reached the age of majority, each of them knew that he or she had
been abducted from his or her family, imprisoned, abused, forced
to work for no pay and not provided any education," the opinion
states.

Two of the plaintifs, Valerie Carmack and Hazel Goulding, both
returned to Australia as adults to investigate what had happened
to them -- at the latest in the early 1990s, according to the
opinion.

"Plaintiffs contend that the court has jurisdiction under the
Alien Tort Statute . . . because they are aliens or nonresidents
of the United States who allege grave violations of the specific,
universal and obligatory norms of customary international law,"
the opinion states.

The panel states that the plaintiffs argue that it was not until
2001 when they had the information to reasonably discover their
injury and causes of action against the defendants.

"CCB denies any participation in the alleged child trafficking and
forced labor scheme, as well as any minimum contacts with New York
State," the opinion states.  "OSM argues that it is not a legal
entity and cannot be sued.  Both maintain that the alleged claims
are untimely; have no nexus to the United States; and did not
violate international law when they occurred. If they are to be
tried anywhere, they contend, Australia should be the trial site."

Carmack, Goulding and Emmanuel Ellul initially filed the lawsuit
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated on Dec. 30,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The plaintiffs claim CCB, OSM and various unnamed Catholic
religious orders violated customary international laws, including
slavery and involuntary servitude, child trafficking, forced child
labor and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, as
well as common law claims of conversion, unjust enrichment,
constructive trust, accounting and breach of fiduciary or special
duty.

The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.  On
March 23, 2011, District Judge Paul A. Crotty dismissed the class
action.

The court held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over CCB
because CCB had never been properly served.

The district court also found, based on the allegations in the
complaint and an affidavit submitted with OSM's motion, that OSM
was not a legal entity capable of being sued; rather, "OSM" was a
loose term for nine independent, autonomous regional organizations
of nuns that all use the name "Sisters of Mercy."

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 2011.

"For the same reasons, the district court correctly dismissed
plaintiffs' state common law claims, all of which have a
limitations period shorter than ten years," the opinion states.

The plaintiffs are represented by Neal DeYoung and H. Rajan Sharma
of Sharma & DeYoung in New York.

CCB is represented by Timothy James O'Shaughnessy and Matthew W.
Naparty of Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP in Great Neck, N.Y.

OSM is represented by Thomas Edward Wack -- tewack@bryancave.com
-- and Michael Gordon Biggers -- mgbiggers@bryancave.com -- of
Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case number: 11-1682


CONVERSANT INC: Inks MoU to Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In re Conversant, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A.
No. 10174-VCN entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding
the settlement of the suit, according to the company's Nov. 28,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

As previously disclosed in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") by Alliance Data and Conversant on November
4, 2014 (the "joint proxy statement/prospectus"), three putative
stockholder class actions lawsuits were filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery and were consolidated under the caption In re
Conversant, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10174-VCN (the
"Consolidated Action"). Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action name
Conversant, members of the board of directors of Conversant,
Alliance Data and Merger Sub as defendants.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the Conversant director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care
and good faith owed to Conversant's stockholders by allegedly
approving the merger agreement at an unfair price and through an
unfair process, failing to conduct a reasonably informed
evaluation of whether the merger was in the best interests of
Conversant stockholders, failing to fully disclose all material
information to stockholders, and agreeing to allegedly
unreasonable deal protection devices. Plaintiffs also allege that
Alliance Data and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Conversant's directors.

On November 26, 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the
settlement of these putative stockholder class actions against
Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data and Merger Sub.
Conversant and the other defendants believe that the claims
asserted in the Consolidated Action are without merit and that no
further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy
statement/prospectus under applicable laws. However, to avoid the
risk that the putative stockholder class actions may delay or
otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the merger and to
minimize the expense of defending such action, Conversant has
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Conversant's stockholders. In
the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement,
a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all
actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for
appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed
to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses. Conversant will pay or cause to be
paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


CRACKER BARREL: Still Faces FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y., Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. continues to face several
lawsuits alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 31, 2014.

On April 11, 2014, a putative collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York, Proper v.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., in which the named
plaintiff is challenging the Company's classification of associate
managers as being exempt from the minimum wage and overtime
requirements and is asserting various New York state law wage
notice claims. Two other putative collective action suits alleging
claims under the FLSA, Hill and Hernandez v. Cracker Barrel and
Perzan et al. v. Cracker Barrel, were filed in the United States
District Courts for the Middle District of Florida in August 2014
and for the District of Massachusetts in September 2014,
respectively.  These lawsuits assert essentially duplicative
claims under select state laws challenging the same exempt
classification of associate managers.  The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees. Unlike
a class action, a collective action requires potential class
members to "opt in" rather than "opt out".  If any of these
putative collection actions is conditionally certified, the
Company would have an opportunity to seek to have the class de-
certified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on its merits.


DAIKIN INDUSTRIES: Recalls Air Purifiers Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Daikin AC (America) Inc. and Goodman Manufacturing Company L.P.,
of Houston, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 625 in
the United States and 125 in Canada Daikin Streamer air purifiers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The air purifier's circuit board can overheat and cause the air
purifier to catch on fire.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Daikin brand streamer portable air purifiers
with model number MC75KSU.  The air purifiers are portable and are
designed to remove dust, particles and allergens from indoor air
in the home or office.  They are cream-colored and measure about
23 inches tall by 15 inches wide by 8 inches deep.  "Daikin" is
printed on the front of the units.  The model number is located on
a rating plate on the lower right side of the units.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/BBXSrm

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Goodman Manufacturing and other HVAC contractors to consumers and
online at Amazon.com from December 2010 through October 2014 for
about $540.

Consumers should immediately unplug the recalled air purifiers and
contact Daikin for a full refund or a free replacement air
purifier.


DOLE FOODS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Mislabeling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge handed a pretrial victory to Dole Foods
Co. Inc. on Dec. 8 in a class action accusing the company of
mislabeling its products as "all natural fruit," ruling that the
labels are not likely to deceive consumers.

Plaintiff Chad Brazil alleged that Dole misrepresented that its
frozen berry and other mixed fruit products contain all natural
ingredients -- both on the products' labels and on the company's
website.  Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration policies, use of
the term "natural" on a food product's label means nothing
synthetic or artificial has been added, but Dole uses artificial
citric acid and ascorbic acid as chemical preservatives, according
to Brazil's suit.

Dole argued in a motion for summary judgment that its "all
natural" labels refer only to the actual fruit used.  It also
claimed that all of its ingredient suppliers said they only used
natural fermentation to make the additives in its fruit products,
and that customers could reasonably expect citric and ascorbic
acids to be included in foods purported to contain no synthetic
ingredients.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed and granted Dole's motion for
summary judgment, thus disposing of Brazil's claims.

"Brazil has offered no evidence that citric acid and ascorbic
acid, the two allegedly synthetic ingredients found in the
challenged Dole products, 'would not normally be expected to be
in' those products, as the FDA definition requires," Judge Koh
said.  "Absent any evidence that reasonable consumers would not
normally expect citric acid and ascorbic acid to be found in the
challenged Dole products, Brazil cannot rely on FDA's informal
policy to show that those consumers were likely to have been
misled."

William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP,
who represents Dole, told Law360 that he thinks Judge Koh's
decision could serve as a bellwether in similar suits involving
"all natural" claims, noting that the same group of class counsel
from the Brazil case has filed 48 cases in the Northern District
of California.

Mr. Stern said Judge Koh's ruling was the first time a judge made
a decision on the merits in an "all natural" labeling case versus
other cases that got past a motion to dismiss and were then
settled.  Manufacturers have paid tens of millions of dollars to
settle these claims and to change their labels, Mr. Stern said,
and it is rare today to find the term "all natural" on a label.

"Brazil marks the first merits ruling defining exactly what it is
that plaintiffs in these cases must prove," Mr. Stern said.  "The
bar Brazil sets is a high one."

Mr. Stern said the hundreds of lawsuits in recent years over "all
natural" labeling is the result of an ambiguity of the FDA's
making because the agency espoused an informal "natural" policy
two decades ago but never defined exactly what that term means.
He added that manufacturers petitioned the FDA to clarify that
meaning, but the agency declined.

"Plaintiffs lawyers have exploited that ambiguity by trying to get
courts to impose their meaning," Mr. Stern said.

Judge Koh's ruling was the latest setback in Brazil's attempts to
hold Dole accountable for the allegedly misleading labels.

In November, Judge Koh decertified the damages class in the case,
ruling that the damages model set forth by Brazil's expert Oral
Capps can't measure only the damages attributable to Dole's
alleged misbranding.  As a result, the model "fails to provide a
means of showing damages on a classwide basis through common
proof," and Brazil hasn't satisfied Rule 23's requirement that
common issues predominate over individual ones, Judge Koh held at
the time.

Brazil is represented by Charles Barrett of Charles Barrett PC,
Brian Herrington of Barrett Law Group PA and Ben F. Pierce of
Pratt & Associates.

Dole is represented by William L. Stern, Claudia M. Vetesi --
cvetesi@mofo.com -- Kathleen B. Roney and Lisa A. Wongchenko --
lwongchenko@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The case is Brazil v. Dole Food Co. Inc. et al., case number 5:12-
cv-01831, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

A copy of the Court's Dec. 8 Order is available at
http://is.gd/S6Wj36from Leagle.com.


DDP HOLDINGS: Faces "Feiertag" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Feiertag, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees nationwide, and on behalf of the Ohio Rule 23
Class v. DDP Holdings, LLC d/b/a Apollo Retail Specialists, LL,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02643 (S.D. Ohio, December 16, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

DDP Holdings, LLC is a third party retail supplier in North
America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq.
      Deborah R. Grayson, Esq.
      MEIZLISH & GRAYSON
      830 Main Street, Suite 999
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 345-4700
      E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net
              drgrayson@fuse.net


DREAM ON ME: Recalls Incredible Play Yards Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dream On Me, of South Plainfield, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 10,000 Dream On Me Play Yards.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The play yard's rails can collapse, presenting a strangulation
hazards to young children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes Dream On Me Incredible two-level deluxe
adjustable height play yards with model number starting with 436A,
436B, 436G, 436O, 436P and 436R.  The play yards, made with a
steel, powder-coated frame base with rolling, hooded casters, have
a fabric and mesh covering that comes in a variety of colors.  The
play yard includes a changing top, a toy bar with soft toys for
entertainment, a side pocket for storage and a carrying case.
"Dream On Me" is printed on the bottom left-hand side outside of
the product.  The model number is printed on a label attached to
the play yard's mattress.  The play yard can be folded for
storage.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/e5mvER

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at Amazon, Kohls, Toys R US, WalMart, Wayfair and other online
retailers from March 2010 through January 2014 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled play yards
and contact Dream On Me to receive a free repair kit.


DUNE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Costello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Costello, on her own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Dune Management Company, Inc. d/b/a Dune Resorts,
James Zaborski, John Does #1-100, Case No. 1:14-cv-07307
(E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate resort hotels in New York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG, P.C.
      11 Broadway, Suite 615
      New York, NY 10017
      Facsimile: (212) 214-0799
      Telephone: (347) 651-0044


DYCK O'NEAL: Faces Foreclosure Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
Kim Miller, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that the lurking
debt left after a foreclosure is hitting Florida residents hard
this year as a private firm files to collect on so-called
"deficiency judgments", which are often worth tens of thousands of
dollars.  But one homeowner is fighting back in a federal lawsuit
seeking class action status on behalf of borrowers whose wages can
be garnished and assets seized to pay off the leftover mortgage
debt.

In Palm Beach County, about 240 deficiency judgment lawsuits have
been filed by the Texas-based firm Dyck O'Neal.  The suits often
come as a surprise to homeowners who thought their foreclosure
battle ended when they saw their home sold at auction.

A deadline change in state law triggered the mass of deficiency
judgment filings this year.

The lawsuit, filed in October by a former Jacksonville resident,
says the collection firm is violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in cases where suits are being filed in Florida, but
the former homeowner now lives elsewhere.

Danella Huthsing moved to St. Louis after a 2010 foreclosure.  Her
Jacksonville home was sold at auction July 15, 2010, but Dyck
O'Neal is claiming she still owed $91,029 in unpaid debt.

Four years later, Dyck O'Neal sued her in Florida seeking to
collect on the debt.

"Defendants' systemic conduct constitutes actual harm to thousands
of individuals like (Huthsing), who are being forced to defend
themselves in distant or inconvenient courts against an
unanticipated and unfamiliar debt buyer," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit was filed by Jacksonville attorney Chip Parker of
Parker & DuFresne law firm. It's his second attempt to go after
Dyck O'Neal.  He said he dismissed a similar lawsuit filed in
August after evidence was produced that said the loan may not have
been a consumer loan.

"Danell Huthsing's loan is definitely a consumer loan, and to
avoid protracted arguments on damages, Ms. Huthsing is only
seeking statutory damages on behalf of class members," Mr. Parker
said in an email.  "Individual class members who suffer actual
damages as a result of Dyck-O'Neal's illegal collection activity
can still file individual federal cases for actual damages."


E & L CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Menjiva" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tito E. Menjiva, Joan Cale, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a
collective action v. E & L Construction Service, LLC and Erick
Hernandez, Case No. 6:14-cv-02057 (M.D. Fla., December 16, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing residential and
commercial painting services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis A. Creed III, Esq.
      FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA
      501 N. Reo St
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com


EATON CORP: Recalls Electrical Meter Breakers Due to Shock Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Eaton Corporation, of Moon Township, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,100 Electrical Meter Breakers.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The meter breaker's electrical components can be easily accessed,
posing a shock hazard to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves MBED 3042 series residential meter breaker.
The meter breakers are service entrance equipment systems that
consist of a single meter socket and load center or a meter socket
and main breaker combined in one enclosure.  The meter breakers
have gray metallic enclosures and measure about 14 1/4 inches wide
by 42 1/2 inches high by 7 inches deep.  The recalled units have
catalog numbers MBED3042B200BF, MBED3042B200BF6, MBED3042B225PV or
MBED3042PV200BF.  The catalog number is located on the unit's
packaging.  The enclosures have a single warning label on the
bottom of the lower right compartment door, which is secured with
a latch and hasp at the bottom.  Consumers should not open the
meter breaker's enclosure.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/uJWUwo

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at authorized distributors in California and Nevada from July 2014
through August 2014 from about $200.

Only qualified electrical contractors should repair the product,
and consumers should not open the meter breaker's enclosure.
Electrical contractors should immediately contact their meter
breaker distributor to determine if any of their units are
included in this recall.  Contractors will receive a free remedy
kit, including shipping.  Consumers should contact Eaton or the
electrical contractor that installed the recalled meter breaker
for the free installation of the repair kit.


ENBRIDGE INC: Settles 2010 Oil Spill Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Dani Carlson and 24 Hour News 8 reports that Enbridge Inc. has
agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought against it in
response to a 2010 spill that dumped more than 800,000 gallons of
crude oil into the Kalamazoo River.

The agreement will cover everyone who owns land or lives within
1,000 feet of the river between Talmadge Creek and the mouth of
Morrow Lake.  That's the area affected by the pipeline break that
spilled some 840,000 gallons of crude oil into Talmadge Creek and
the Kalamazoo River on July 26, 2010. Recent estimates place
cleanup costs at $1.21 billion.

Five people filed the class action against the company and a
settlement was reached on Dec. 5.

24 Hour News 8 then went to the Village of Ceresco.  The Kalamazoo
River runs through the middle of town.

Everyone who spoke with 24 Hour News 8 there had not heard
anything about the suit or the settlement.  Rick Frey, who has
lived in Ceresco his entire life, was surprised by the settlement
terms and said his family was not expecting or asking for anything
from Enbridge.

"We're not in it to try to be -- to take any more money away from
Enbridge or anything else.  We're quite content with what they
have done as far as all the work and everything," said Mr. Frey.

Mr. Frey said he hasn't forgotten what it was like after the spill
-- far from it.

"Terrible. Terrible," said Mr. Frey when asked what it was like
immediately after the spill.  "I couldn't hardly tolerate the
smell . . .  It was horrendous."

But despite the initial frustration or problems the spill caused,
Mr. Frey said he believes Enbridge has taken responsibility for
its mistake.

"It's not like it's nothing that they did this intentionally.
Accidents happen everyday, and when it gets right down to it, they
did what they needed to do," said Mr. Frey.  "They abide by all
the regulations that were issued to them.  It's just a time-
consuming project, but they've got it pretty much remedied."

24 Hour News 8 spoke to another man in the village who was not
satisfied with how Enbridge handled the situation.  The feeling
was that a couple of hundred dollars wouldn't make much of a
difference.  That's likely what it would mean for most people
affected by the agreement -- several hundred dollars.

The settlement filed in Western District Federal Court in Grand
Rapids on Dec. 5, Enbridge estimates it will pay about $6 million
dollars to settle the class action lawsuit.  Of that, about $2.2
million will be split among residents and land owners based on how
close their property is to the affected waterways.  People who
live directly along the water will split an estimated $250,000.
The dollar amount of the settlement falls the further someone's
land is from the river and will be delivered in the form of a gift
card able to be used at businesses in Calhoun and Kalamazoo
counties.

Those who lived 201-400 feet away will receive a $750 gift card,
401-600 feet  will receive a $600 gift card, 601-800 feet will
receive a $400 gift card and 801-1000 feet away will receive a
$300 gift card.

If the settlement agreement is approved by a federal judge, those
affected will receive a notification.  In order to receive any of
the funds, people affected will have to fill out and send in a
claim form.  If someone doesn't send in a claim form or opt out of
the settlement, that person will be held to the agreement but will
not receive anything in exchange.

Enbridge spokesperson Jason Manshum told 24 Hour News 8 over the
phone on Dec. 8 that gift cards were the chosen method of payment
for sums $750 and below so the money stay within Kalamazoo and
Calhoun counties.

Mr. Manshum then sent 24 Hour News 8 a written statement from
Enbridge that states in part:

"The settlement has positive outcomes for the local communities in
Calhoun and Kalamazoo counties. We agreed to this settlement as
part of our overall commitment to address the concerns of the
community."

The settlement agreement also calls for Enbridge to set aside $1.5
million for claims related to the spill.  The money will reimburse
people for expenses between July 26, 2010 and Aug. 31, 2010 linked
to the spill -- things like hotel bills, relocation expenses,
meals, gas or fuel, and lost wages.

Enbridge will also cover requested well testing, an estimated to
cost of about $50,000.

A number of area public safety and conservation groups will get a
share of a $150,000 donation fund set up under the settlement.


ESPN: Seeks Dismissal of College Athletes' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, Senior Editor for Variety, reports that ESPN, major
broadcasters, athletic conferences and WME Entertainment and IMG
Worldwide are seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by
10 college athletes, claiming profits from game telecasts using
their names and likenesses without their permission.

A number of athletic conferences weighed in on Dec. 10, asking
that the lawsuit be dismissed for a simple reason: The athletes
don't have a right of publicity in sporting events.

The student athletes "erroneously assume that game participants
have a right of publicity with respect to broadcasts of sporting
events, and to advertisements for those broadcasts," a group of
athletic conferences, including the Southeastern Conference and
the Big Ten, said in a brief filed in a federal court in
Tennessee.  "Apart from being inherently impractical (any single
participant could hold out and prevent the broadcast), plaintiffs'
position has been rejected repeatedly by controlling legal
authorities."

Broadcasters and sports licensing agencies were expected to file
motions for dismissal later on Dec. 10.

The athletes filed suit in October, claiming that the long list of
defendants have "conspired with each other and the NCAA to
promulgate, enforce, adopt, implement and/or enforce rules that
are inherently anticompetitive" in forbidding the athletes from
"competing in the marketplace for the value of their rights of
publicity."

The athletes include players Javon Marshall, Eric Samuels and
Steven Clarke from Vanderbilt University, Sean Parker of the
University of Washington, Patrick Miller of Tennessee State
University, Rod Wilks, Byron Moore, Chaz Moore and Marlon Walls of
the University of Tennessee and Chris Conner of the University of
Maryland.  They claim that a release form they are forced to sign
as a condition of playing football or basketball is unenforceable.
They contend that the defendants have violated antitrust and
trademark laws.

In addition to the athletic conferences, ESPN is named as a
defendant along with CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox. WME and IMG were named
along with a series of other licensing agents.

The conferences contend that the athletes rely on the Tennessee
Personal Rights Protection Act, even though it "specifies that
participants have no publicity rights in broadcasts or
advertisements for sporting events."  They note that courts have
recognized that the right to license a sporting event vests
"exclusively in the promoter or producer of the event."

"A right of publicity arises when a person's name, image or
likeness is used to promote a product or service, not when that
person simply appears in public," the conferences' brief states.

They also reject the athletes' claims that they have a common law
right of publicity that would cover the game broadcasts.

The case for compensating college athletes got some fuel last
summer, when a federal court ruled in favor of UCLA basketball
star Ed O'Bannon and 19 others in their claim that the NCAA rules
violated antitrust laws in blocking them from receiving
compensation for the use of their images in videogames and certain
types of broadcasts.

The athletic conferences, however, said that when it came to game
footage, the O'Bannon decision recognized only that there may be a
limited right of publicity in at least one state of stock footage,
and only if it was used for endorsements.

"The creation of a requirement that every 'participant' in a
sporting event be convinced to transfer his or her publicity
rights would impose a substantial and unwarranted burden on
staging sporting events," the conferences' brief stated.
"Potential participants would include not only players, but
substitutes who never enter the game, coaches, cheerleaders,
referees, medical personnel and even spectators."

The athletic conferences argue that because athletes have no right
of publicity claim to the broadcasts, that negates their other
claims, including those for antitrust violations.

Update: ESPN and the broadcast networks also argue that there is
no right of publicity for televised sporting events.

"Plaintiffs cannot sue based on a violation of rights they do not
have," the networks said in their brief.  "Moreover, the network
defendants merely purchase the rights to broadcast certain games
played by college athletes.  And although college athletes are
subject to NCAA rules, the United States Supreme Court has
described these very rules as procompetitive and critical to the
viability of amateur college sports in our country."  The rules,
they added, "predate even the advent of national television
broadcasting."

They also argue that the First Amendment "bars restrictions on
noncommercial speech such as sports broadcasting and related
advertising."

Licensing entities named in the lawsuit -- including IMG
Worldwide, William Morris Endeavor and JMI Sports -- argue that
the Supreme Court has "conclusively resolved" the antitrust issue
in the players' lawsuit, holding that the NCAA amateurism rules do
not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.


ETHAN ALLEN: Recalls Floor Lamps Due to Electrical Shock
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ethan Allen of Danbury, Conn., announced a voluntary recall of
about 70 Harwood Floor Lamps.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A defect in the line cord insulation poses a risk of electrical
shock.

One reported incident of electrical shock.

The floor lamp is made of bronze-plated steel with a bronze
finish.  The lamp sits on a square metal base that is about 8
inches by 8 inches and has an adjustable bronze-plated metal post
that goes up to 60 inches high.  A second pole adjusts the tilt of
the lamp.  At the end of this second pole is a six-sided metal
lamp shade about 6 inches in diameter and about 4 inches tall.  On
the underside of the base is a label with the name Ethan Allen,
the item number 09-2562 and the date code 12/2013.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/PY0OGu

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ethan
Allen Design Centers between November 2013 and October 2014 for
about $530.

Consumers should unplug the lamp and return it to an Ethan Allen
Design Center for a full refund, including delivery charges if
shipped.


FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Cyclocross Bicycles Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Felt Bicycles, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 150 Felt Cyclocross Bicycles.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The frame of the bicycle could break, causing the rider to lose
control, fall and suffer injuries.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes Felt Cyclocross bicycles 2015 models F65X and
F85X.  The 2015 F65X bicycle has a satin black aluminum frame with
"Felt" printed in white letters and a diagonal wide white stripe
next to a thin white stripe on the frame.  The 2015 F85X bicycle
has a dark red berry colored aluminum frame with diagonal stripes
in black, mint green and yellow on the frame.  The Felt logo is
printed on the bike frame and the model number is printed on the
chainstay of the bicycle frame.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/oadgrk

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Bicycle specialty stores nationwide from June 2014 through
September 2014 for between $1,200 and $1,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact their local Felt Bicycles dealer for a free inspection and
frame replacement.


FORD MOTOR: Kansas Court Narrows Claims in "Knopke" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KNOPKE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
14-2225-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.), alleges that the throttle body
component of the 2011 Ford Edge vehicle is defective, that Ford
knew the throttle was defective yet concealed that information
from consumers, and that Ford breached its warranties by denying
any defect in the vehicle during the term of the extended
warranty.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) on these counts:

     -- Count II, which seeks a declaratory judgment that the
durational limit of five years or 60,000 miles under Ford's New
Vehicle Limited Warranty is unconscionable and therefore
unenforceable;

     -- Count IV which alleges a claim under the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act for unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts and
practices; and

     -- the attorneys fees and civil penalties claims in Count
III, which alleges that Ford breached the implied warranty of
merchantability.

Ford also filed a motion to Strike Nationwide Class Allegations.

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file Sur-Reply.

District Judge Julie A. Robinson of the District Court of Kansas
granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file sur-reply.
Defendant's motion to dismiss count the complaint and to strike
nationwide class allegations is granted, in part, and denied, in
part. The motion to dismiss is granted as to count II and all
others denied.

In granting Count II, Judge Robinson said Plaintiff's factual
allegations fall short of alleging a plausible claim for relief
that the durational limitation of Ford's express warranty is
unconscionable.

In dismissing Count III and Count IV respectively, Judge Robinson
opined that the motion to dismiss the civil penalty and attorneys'
fees remedies in Count III is therefore denied without prejudice
to re-filing after class certification is resolved and that KCPA
governs deceptive acts and practices "in connection with a
consumer transaction." And it prohibits "any unconscionable act or
practice in connection with a consumer transaction whether it
occurs before, during or after the transaction." Plaintiff need
not show that Ford had knowledge of the defect before it was sold
to the original purchaser to maintain his KCPA claim. In sum, the
Court said Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts under
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 9(b) to state a plausible claim for relief
under the KCPA.

A copy of Judge Robinson's Memorandum and Order dated November 10,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/awNce5from Leagle.com.

Michael Knopke, Plaintiff, is represented by Blake P. Green --
blake@burgessandgreen.com -- Mitchell L. Burgess --
mitch@burgessandgreeen.com -- at Burgess & Green, PC; and Ralph K.
Phalen - phalenlaw@yahoo.com -- at Ralph K. Phalen, Attorney at
Law

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by J. Tracy Walker, IV
-- twalker@mcguirewoods.com -- R. Kent Warren --
kwarren@mcguirewoods.com -- Richard C. Beaulieu --
rbeaulieu@mcguirewoods.com -- and Tennille J. Checkovich --
tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuire Woods, LLP; Janet L.
Conigliaro -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett PLLC;
and Steven E. Ward -- sward@trdlp.com -- at Turner, Reid, Duncan,
Loomer & Patton, PC


GCI OUTDOOR: Recalls Stadium Seats Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GCI Outdoor, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,000 Stadium
seats.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The backrest can fail, posing a risk of injury.

GCI Outdoor has received a report of one incident where backrest
support failed and the consumer fell to the ground from the top of
a 4-foot tall bleacher and suffered neck and back injuries.

The recall involves GCI Outdoor BleacherBack stadium seats.  The
seats are made of a powder-coated steel frame, a stitched fabric
backrest and a fabric-covered padded bottom.  The backrest has a
mesh pocket on the back side.  The seat bottom has a strap that
runs from one side through two D rings on the upper part of the
backrest and back down to the other side.  The strap has a yellow
buckle.  The backrest and seat bottoms were sold in the colors
black, green, maroon, navy blue, red and royal blue.  When open,
the seats measure 16 inches wide x 12 inches deep x 17.5 inches
high.  The backrest folds forward to a height of 4 inches.

Recalled stadium seats have these purchase order (PO) numbers:

41223, 41269, 41273, 41332, 41348, 41367, 41371, 41371, 41379,
41380, 41390

41401
41515, 41520, 41537, 41538, 41539, 41540, 41541, 41542, 41627,
41628, 41629, 41630, 41631, 41632, 41633, 41634, 41635, 41636,
41639, 41640, 41641, 41642, 41643, 41644, 41645, 41646, 41647,
41648, 41649, 41668, 41715, 41716, 41717, 41718

The PO number is on a small white tag under the product
information label sewn onto the back of the chair inside the
pocket.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/xao0jK

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Academy Sports + Outdoors, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Dick's Sporting
Goods, Sports Authority and other sporting goods retailers
nationwide and online at GCIoutdoor.com and other online retailers
from January 2013 to August 2014 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled stadium
chairs and contact GCI Outdoor for a free strap repair kit that
includes installation instructions, an additional safety strap and
a new warning sticker.


GIGGLES INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Animated Monkey Toy
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Giggles International Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary
recall of about 13,000 Animated toy.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery compartment can reach temperatures up to 230 degrees
Fahrenheit, posing a burn hazard.

Giggles International has received two reports of toys overheating
and melting their battery compartments.

The recall involves Giggles International Animated Sing-Along
Monkey toys.  The monkey is made of brown and beige plush material
and is about 9 inches tall. The toy is designed to hold a song
book titled "5 Little Monkeys" and to sing the song when
activated.  A red music note is on the bottom of the monkey's
right foot and the face of a child with its hands covering its
eyes are on the bottom of the money's left foot.  Recalled sing-
along monkeys were manufactured between 6/7/2014 and 7/5/2014 and
have batch code GP1410028.  The manufacture date in the M/D/YYYY
format and batch code are printed on the bottom of a white fabric
label attached near the base of the monkey's tail.  The monkey
toys came in a tan colored box with words "Animated Sing-Along
Monkey," "Sing along with me!" and "I play peek-a-boo with you!"
on the front.  The age advisory "For ages 3+" and the warning that
batteries are included are also on the front of the box.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/pc80ck

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores nationwide from
September 2014 to October 2014 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the animated monkey away from
children, remove the batteries and return the toy to any Cracker
Barrel Old Country Store or contact Giggles International for a
full refund.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Sovaldi Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP of Haverford, PA on Dec. 9 disclosed that
it has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") in federal court in
Philadelphia, PA against Gilead Sciences, Inc. related to the sale
and pricing of its Hepatitis-C drug, Sovaldi(R).  Sovaldi is the
first drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for
certain types of Hepatitis-C infections that does not need to be
injected.  It can reportedly cure about 90 percent of patients
with the most common form of Hepatitis-C in three to six months,
and can do so with relatively minor side effects compared to
earlier available treatments.

Gilead has been selling a twelve week regimen of Sovaldi in the
United States for approximately $84,000, or $1,000 per pill.  This
is significantly more than the original price projection for
Sovaldi, and in sharp contrast to the prices at which the drug is
being made available in other countries.  Gilead recently
announced its intention to make Sovaldi available in 91 developing
countries at deeply discounted prices, and the drug is reportedly
available in Egypt for 99% below the U.S. price.  This obvious
pricing paradox is under investigation by the Senate Finance
Committee, which has questioned if the market for Sovaldi "is
working efficiently and rationally," and whether "payors of health
care . . . can carry such a load."

While there are some orphan drugs that are similarly expensive,
they are typically limited to rare conditions that affect only a
very small patient population.  In those instances, charging high
prices may be necessary to recoup amounts invested in research and
development.  In the case of Sovaldi, however, there are between
2.7 and 5.2 million people in the United States infected with
Hepatitis-C, and 185 million people worldwide.  The complaint
alleges that, if left unchecked, Gilead's exorbitant pricing
scheme has the potential to bankrupt segments of the U.S.
healthcare system.  According to the complaint, Gilead's pricing
practices have also had the effect of pricing certain consumers
and government programs out of the Sovaldi market, thus preventing
sick patients from obtaining this critical drug.  The complaint
also cites reports that Gilead's pricing scheme has had a
disproportionately high impact on minorities and those in lower
income brackets (demographics that have had historically higher
incidents of Hepatitis-C infections).  Meanwhile, Gilead has
recorded an astounding $8.5 billion in Sovaldi sales through the
first three quarters of 2014 alone.

The complaint alleges that, under these extraordinary
circumstances, Gilead's pricing cannot be justified by any patent
rights it purports to have related to Sovaldi.  The lawsuit seeks
class action status on behalf of all persons and entities that
have paid some or all of the purchase price of Sovaldi, and those
who have been prevented from obtaining a needed Sovaldi regimen
due to its excessive price.  The complaint asserts causes of
action for unjust enrichment, for violations of provisions in the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Affordable Care Act, and based on a
breach of contract theory.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
Nicholas E. Chimicles Benjamin F. Johns
Joseph B. Kenney
One Haverford Centre
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500/(888) 805-7848
Fax: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: Nick@Chimicles.com
        BFJ@Chimicles.com
        JBK@Chimicles.com
Web site: http://www.chimicles.com

For over 30 years Chimicles & Tikellis has pursued hundreds of
securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered
billions of dollars for their clients.  The firm is nationally
recognized, and their litigators hold many professional honors and
distinctions.


GOAL ZERO: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Goal Zero LLC, of Bluffdale, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of
about 10,000 in the U.S. and 110 in Canada Goal Zero Sherpa brand
50 and 120 rechargeable battery packs.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery packs can overcharge, overheat, bulge and melt the
battery pack's enclosure, posing a fire hazard and risk of
property damage.

Goal Zero has received one report of a fire and two reports of
property damage due to the battery packs overheating.  One
consumer reported becoming ill after breathing fumes from an
overheated battery pack.

The recall involves Goal Zero's Sherpa brand 50 and 120
rechargeable battery packs that are used to charge cell phones,
tablets, laptops and other devices.  The battery packs can be
plugged into an A/C wall outlet, a 12 volt car charger or an
attachable solar panel for recharging.  The lithium ion iron
phosphate battery packs are silver and black. Goal Zero and Sherpa
50 or 120 are printed on one side of the battery pack.  The serial
number is printed on the other side.  Serial numbers that start
with S/N 11002 or S/N 11102 are included in the recall.  Sherpa 50
battery packs with serial numbers starting with S50 are not
included in this recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/80zVXf

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at REI
and other sporting goods stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com and Goalzero.com from March 2010 through November 2013
for between $200 and $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled battery packs
and contact Goal Zero for a free replacement battery pack.


HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Settlement Okayed in Sinus Buster Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the Eastern District of New York
approved the settlement agreement in the case IN RE SINUS BUSTER
PRODUCTS CONSUMER LITIGATION, No. 12-CV-2429 (ADS)(AKT)(E.D.N.Y.)

The Defendant Hi-Tech acquired Sinus Buster products that it
continues to market and sell. Defendant SiCap is a limited
liability company, which designed and developed Sinus Buster
products. Defendant Wayne Perry is the creator and developer of
the Sinus Buster products, and was, until 2010, the founder and
CEO of Defendant SiCap. Defendant Dynova Laboratories Inc.
acquired SiCap and its line of Sinus Buster products in 2008.

The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action
complaint, which asserted claims against the Defendants for
violation of (i) the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
2301, et seq., (ii) for unjust enrichment, (iii) common law fraud,
(iv) breach of express warranty, (v) breach of implied warranties
of fitness and merchantability, (vi) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J.S.A. Section 58:8-1, et seq., (vii) the Minnesota private
attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. Section 8.31, et seq.,
(viii) and the consumer fraud statutes of the fifty states. The
thrust of these claims is that the Defendants misled consumers
into believing that Sinus Buster products were approved by the FDA
and that the Defendants mischaracterized the products as
"homeopathic" solely to avoid FDA regulations.
Settlement Class Counsel and counsel for Hi-Tech initiated
settlement discussions. After arm's-length negotiations under the
guidance of Magistrate Judge Tomlinson, Hi-Tech and Settlement
Class Counsel agreed on the terms of a settlement to resolve the
claims of individuals in the United States who purchased Sinus
Buster products on or after March 7, 2012 and before February 20,
2014. The settlement provides the proposed class, among other
things, (i) a full monetary refund of the actual purchase price of
the Sinus Buster products that they purchased or, in the
alternative, $5.00 per Sinus Buster product purchased up to two
Sinus Buster products ($10.00 in total); (ii) certain remedial
measures; (iii) attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the amount
of $250,000 that are independent of the common fund established
for settlement; and (iv) an incentive award of $2,500 for each of
the named Plaintiffs.

At the Plaintiffs' behest, Judge Spatt approved the settlement
agreement and granted the Settlement Class Counsel's application
for attorneys' fees and costs of $250,000.

A copy of Judge Spatt's memorandum of decision and order dated
November 10, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/whQOhifrom
Leagle.com

Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. -- avozzolo@faruqilaw.com -- and Courtney
Maccarone, Esq., at FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, Co-Lead Interim Class
Counsel

Scott A. Bursor, Esq. -- scott@bursor.com -- and Joseph I.
Marchese, Esq. -- marchese@bursor.com -- at BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.,
Of Counsel.

Jeffrey N. Levy, Esq. -- jlevy@tgcllaw.com -- at TASHLIK GOLDWIN
CRANDELL LEVY LLP, Of Counsel, Attorney for Defendant Hi-Tech
Pharmacal, Inc.


HOME INSTEAD: D. Colo. Judge Denied Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Krieger of the District of Colorado denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the case entitled, TESHA SCOTT,
on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HOME INSTEAD, INC. and MAGUIRE SENIOR SERVICES,
INC., doing business as Home Instead Senior Care #365, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 14-CV-00833-MSK-CBS (D. Colo.)

Home Instead Inc. and Maguire Senior Services, Inc. employed Tesha
Scott as a caregiver. Ms. Scott alleges that she routinely worked
50-60 hours per week and more than 12 hours per day, but was not
paid time-and-a-half for overtime hours as required by federal and
state law. She asserts two claims: (i) violation of Colorado's
Minimum Wage Order, 7 C.C.R. Section 1103-1; and (ii) violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 209 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.

Ms. Scott seeks to pursue her state-law claim as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. She proposes that the class be
defined as "All current and former caregiver employees of
Defendants who worked on or after March 21, 2012."

Judge Krieger denied Ms. Scott's motion to certify a class,
without prejudice. The Court encouraged the parties to promptly
move for a resolution of the legal question of whether Wage Order
30 permits "companions" to remain exempt if they perform "general
household work" for up to 20% of their weekly hours. Should the
Court ultimately resolve that question in Ms. Scott's favor, she
may then seek certification of an appropriate class to litigate
whatever issues remain under the state law claim.

A copy of Chief Judge Krieger's opinion and order dated November
10, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/eYTGKsfrom Leagle.com.

Tesha Scott, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers
Milstein -- Brandt@milsteinLawOffice.com -- at Milstein Law
Office.

Home Instead, Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry Laurence
Wiedrich -- henry.wiedrich@huschblackwell.com -- Mary Hurley
Stuart -- mary.stuart@huschblackwell.com -- Michaelle Lynn Baumert
-- michaelle.baumert@huschblackwell.com -- at Husch Blackwell LLP;
and Peter Francis Munger -- peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- at
Jackson Lewis, P.C.

Maguire Senior Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicholas
Anthony Murray -- Nicholas.Murray@jacksonlewis.com --; and Peter
Francis Munger -- peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson
Lewis, P.C.


HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Super Cub S Radio-Controlled Aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Horizon Hobby LLC, of Champaign, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about HobbyZone Super Cub S Ready-To-Fly and Super Cub S
Bind-N-Fly Power Supply and Charger.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Power supply units and chargers sold with the model aircraft can
overcharge the battery, posing a risk of fire and property damage.
There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves the power supply and charger included
exclusively with the HobbyZone Super Cub S Ready-To-Fly aircraft,
model number HBZ8100 and the HobbyZone Super Cub S Bind-N-Fly
model number HBZ8180.  Aircraft model numbers are located on the
packaging.  The power supply is 2 1/2 inches by 1 3/4 inches by 1
1/4 inches and is black with a blue label that reads "HobbyZone"
and model "HBZ1004."  The DC auxiliary charger is 5 inches by 2
1/2 inches by 1 3/4 inches and is black with a blue label that
reads, "HobbyZone" and model "HBZ1003."

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/BsU6RD

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Hobby stores nationwide and online at
HorizonHobby.com from April 2014 through August 2014 for $170 for
the Bind-N-Fly and $200 for the Ready-to-Fly..

Consumers should stop using the power supply and chargers
immediately and contact Horizon Hobby for a replacement AC
charger.


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Grayson" Suit Over Defective Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie L. Grayson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. d/b/a Stryker Orthopaedics,
Stryker Corporation, and Stryker Sales Corporation, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00158 (E.D. Ark., December 16, 2014), arises from the
manufacturing defects of the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip Stem
that is designed and manufactured by the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a company that designs,
manufactures and marketed Rejuvenate Modular Hip System.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith L. Grayson, Esq.
      GRAYSON & GRAYSON, P.A.
      209 East Main Street
      Heber Springs, AR 72543
      Telephone: (501) 206-0905
      E-mail: graysonandgrayson@att.net


IEC ELECTRONICS: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of New York
issued order granting the motion to dismiss a shareholder suit
against IEC Electronics Corp., according to the company's Nov. 25,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

IEC Electronics Corp. restated its financial statements. In
connection with the restatement, the Audit Committee conducted an
independent review of the underlying facts and circumstances, and
the Company is responding to a formal investigation by the staff
of the SEC relating to the restatement and other matters. The
Company is unable to predict what action, if any, might be taken
in the future by the SEC or its staff as a result of the
investigation or what impact the cost of responding to the SEC
might have on the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows. The previously reported amended
complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action originally
filed June 28, 2013 in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against the Company and its CEO and former
CFO seeking unspecified compensatory damages was dismissed in its
entirety without right to replead. The Court's opinion and order
granting the motion to dismiss was issued on September 11, 2014,
and the judgment dismissing the complaint and closing the case was
entered on September 12, 2014.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Cert. Sought in VLT Gaming Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives of a purported class of persons allegedly harmed
by VLT gaming continue to seek class certification of the case
from the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador, according to
International Game Technology's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On April 26, 2012, representatives of a purported class of persons
allegedly harmed by VLT gaming filed an action in the Supreme
Court of New Foundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery Corporation
has impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game
Technology and other third party defendants seeking
indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic
Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class action certification on September 17, 2012. The Court
has decided to address the motion for certification in two phases.
Under Phase 1, the Court was to determine whether the Plaintiffs
have pleaded a cause of action. Hearings on Phase 1 were held on
June 6 and 7, 2013. In Phase 1 of the class action certification
application, the Court ruled that the claim discloses arguable
causes of action. Phase 2 of the certification application will
determine whether there are sufficient common issues raised in the
claim and whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Suits Over GTECH S.p.A. Merger Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A district court consolidated lawsuits filed against International
Game Technology over its pending merger transaction with GTECH
S.p.A, according to International Game Technology's Nov. 25, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Subsequent to the announcement of the Company's entry into a
merger agreement with GTECH S.p.A., various putative shareholder
class action complaints have been filed by purported shareholders
of the Company. As of November 12, 2014, the Company had received
the following complaints, each filed in the Eighth Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County:  Klein v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704058-B,
filed July 18, 2014; Steinberg v. International Game Technology,
et al., Case No. A-14-704098-C, filed July 21, 2014; Kanter v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704101-C,
filed July 21, 2014; Tong v. International Game Technology, et
al., Case No. A-14-704140-B, filed July 21, 2014; MacDougall v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704147-C,
filed July 22, 2014; Longo v. International Game Technology, et
al., Case No. A-14-704277-B, filed July 23, 2014; Kitchen v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704286-C,
filed July 23, 2014; Gonzalez, et al. v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704288-C, filed July 23, 2014;
Krol v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704330-C, filed July 24, 2014; Irving Firemen's Relief &
Retirement Fund v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No.
A-14-704334-B, filed July 24, 2014; Neumann v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704393-B, filed July 25, 2014;
Taber v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704403-B, filed July 25, 2014; Aberman v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704454-B, filed July 27, 2014;
Epstein, et al. v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No.
A-14-704509-B, filed July 28, 2014; Lowinger v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704759-B, filed July 30, 2014;
Lerman v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704849-B, filed August 1, 2014; Braunstein v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704210-B, filed July 22, 2014;
and Weston v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-
14-704856-C, filed August 1, 2014.

In addition, the following related complaints were filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark
County, but have been voluntarily dismissed: Zak v. International
Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704095-C, filed July 21,
2014 and dismissed September 16, 2014; Lerman v. International
Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704287-C, filed July 23,
2014 and dismissed July 31, 2014; and Iron Workers District
Council of Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Welfare, Pension & Annuity
Plans v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704409-C, filed July 25, 2014 and dismissed August 22, 2014.

The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all similarly
situated shareholders of the Company and generally allege that the
members of the IGT board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to IGT shareholders by approving the proposed merger
transaction for inadequate consideration, entering into a merger
agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices and
failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to IGT
shareholders. The complaints also allege claims against IGT and
GTECH, and, in some cases, certain of GTECH's subsidiaries, for
aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against
the completion of the transaction, or, alternatively, damages in
favor of the plaintiffs and the class in the event that the
transaction is completed. Certain of the complaints also seek, in
the event that the transaction is completed, rescission of the
transaction or rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and
the class. IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in these lawsuits.

On October 2, 2014, the District Court held a hearing and granted
motions to consolidate the cases and appointed interim lead
plaintiffs and lead and liaison plaintiffs' counsel.


J & G TRANSPORT: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Truckers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a Florida federal judge refused to dismiss a putative class action
when a transportation company offered the named plaintiffs -- two
former truck drivers -- twice their claimed damages.

Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of Florida said
that the mootness standard did not apply to class actions.

"In those cases, a named plaintiff preserves a personal stake in
the litigation even where her own claim has been resolved because
she has a stake in the claim for class certification," the judge
wrote in his ruling.

His decision comes on the heels of a recent Eleventh Circuit
ruling that found an unaccepted offer of full relief could not
suffice to moot a class action.

In Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, U.S. District Judge Robert L.
Hinkle, writing for the appeals court, cited a dissenting opinion
from Justice Elena Kagan in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk,
which is also cited by Judge Goodman.

"An unaccepted settlement offer -- like any unaccepted contract
offer -- is a legal nullity, with no operative effect," she wrote
in the 2013 decision.

In the putative class action, Collado v. J. & G. TRANSPORT, INC et
al, two truck drivers claim they were underpaid for overtime work
and received less-than-minimum wage pay.  The court had already
granted them conditional class certification before J&G Transport
filed its motion to dismiss based on its offer to pay the named
plaintiffs twice their claimed damages plus legal costs.

"Defendants attempt to accept a stale demand that Plaintiffs no
longer wish to offer," wrote Judge Goodman.

The judge also compelled J & G Transport to produce a list of
truck drivers who could be included in the class.

Plaintiffs are represented by the Law Offices Of Christopher F.
Zacarias.  The defendants are represented by Taylor & Associates,
Attorneys At Law.


K12 INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
A federal court has struck down a class action securities lawsuit
against the nation's largest virtual education provider because
the allegations failed to show K12 or its officers made any false
or misleading statements to the market.

K12, Inc. a technology-based education company and leading
provider of proprietary curriculum and online school programs for
students in pre-K through high school, made the announcement and
praised the court for its handling of the case and thorough review
of the allegations.

The lawsuit, which was filed in January by the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, alleged that K12
committed corporate fraud in making public statements to investors
about its business and financial prospects, but the court ruled
that the statements the plaintiff alleged were fraudulent were not
false or misleading.  In a 25-page opinion released on
November 5, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga examined each
of the allegations and concluded that they amounted to nothing
more than opinions and forecasts by K12 and its officers that
could not be considered false or misleading under the federal
securities laws.  No appeal was filed by the plaintiffs by the
appeal deadline of Dec. 5.

Nate Davis, K12's Chairman and CEO, appreciated the Court's
thorough review of the allegations and reaffirmed the company's
commitment to the highest levels of professional integrity when
providing quality education options for children across the
nation.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has granted preliminary approval of a settlement in a class
action lawsuit against Kaiser Permanente for sending unsolicited,
pre-recorded messages to former customers' cell phones.

Kaiser will pay $5.35 million to settle the class action lawsuit
in which Rafael David Sherman claimed it violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending the messages to cell phones of
former customers after they had canceled their health insurance
plans with the company, according to the order filed Dec. 4 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Class members can expect to receive a pro rata share of the
settlement proceeds, and if all of the approximately 864,412
members file a claim, each will receive approximately $4,
according to the settlement document.

District Judge John A. Houston also approved class certification.

"The court preliminarily finds that the lawsuit satisfies the
applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23, for purposes of settlement only," Judge Houston's
order states.

If more than 1,000 class members opt out of the settlement, Kaiser
has the right to terminate the settlement.

The class action lawsuit was initially filed on April 24, 2013, in
federal court.

Mr. Sherman claimed Kaiser violated the TCPA when it called him
after he canceled his health insurance plan with the company.

Sherman filed a motion for settlement on Oct. 21.

"The court preliminarily finds that the settlement of the lawsuit
. . . is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate
and in the best interests of the class members . . .," the order
states.

Attorneys fees will not exceed 25 percent of the settlement fund
and an incentive award for Sherman will not exceed $1,500.

The defendant denies that it committed any wrongful act or
violated any law or duty, including that it lacked prior express
consent to make the calls, according to the settlement document.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 27.

Mr. Sherman is represented by Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart
in San Diego; and Abbas Kazerounian and Jason A. Ibey of Kazerouni
Law Group APC in Santa Ana, Calif.

Kaiser is represented by Felicia Yu, and Janet M. Lee of Reed
Smith LLP in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number: 3:13-cv-00981


KBR INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca McCray and Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, report that KBR
Inc. asked a Texas federal court on Dec. 5 to dismiss a
consolidated class action complaint alleging securities fraud,
saying its restatement of 2013 earnings does not qualify as fraud
and that plaintiffs failed to prove intent to mislead investors.
According to their motion to dismiss, the company was in the
process of a share buyback at the time of the misstatement, and
its failure to include over $150 million in pre-tax charges
resulting from troubled Canadian contracts was not premeditated or
fraudulent in nature.

"KBR was actually buying back its stock when the plaintiffs allege
the defendants were misleading the market and inflating the stock,
which doesn't make sense," said counsel for KBR Michael Holmes, an
attorney with Vinson & Elkins LLP in Houston.

For KBR to initiate a share buyback program during the class
period, when defendants allege the price of the company's stock
was inflated, would be "economically irrational," the motion said.
This illogical action, it contends, negates the possibility that
the defendants could have intentionally mislead investors.

Lead plaintiff Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System is a
public pension fund that purchased 79,700 shares of the former
Halliburton subsidiary's stock, according to their consolidated
complaint.  APERS is joined by numerous workers' unions as well as
non-union investors, comprising a class the October 2014 complaint
estimates includes hundreds of thousands of members.

The trouble for KBR investors began with the misrepresentation of
troubled contracts managed by its Canadian subsidiary, KBR
Industrial Canada Co.  The company repeatedly showcased its
Canadian business during investor conferences in 2013, as
misinformed analysts touted its "strong growth," according to the
complaint.

By underestimating the value of its contracts, plaintiffs say KBR
inflated its stock value, which dropped by nearly 7 percent after
the company rescinded its 2013 earning statement.

"Defendants' motion didn't challenge our allegations that they
materially misstated the company's financial results and that
these misstatements caused investors to suffer losses.  Their
arguments on scienter are incorrect, and we look forward to
responding to them in our opposition brief," said counsel for
plaintiffs John Rizio-Hamilton of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP in an email to Law360.

But KBR says plaintiffs' claims are hollow and fail to prove that
named defendants William P. Utt, Brian K. Ferraioli, Susan K.
Carter and Dennis S. Baldwin were aware of bad information related
to the Canadian contracts.

"There are no allegations that the individual defendants should
have paid particular attention to the accounting for the Canadian
contracts or to the revenue figures coming out of KBR's Canadian
subsidiary," the motion said.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas Robert Ajamie --
tajamie@ajamie.com -- of Ajamie LLP and Laura Asserfea --
laura.asserfea@blbglaw.com -- Avi Josefson, John Rizio-Hamilton
and Gerald Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, as well as Thomas A. Dubbs --
tdubbs@labaton.com -- Louis Gottlieb -- lgottlieb@labaton.com --
Matthew Belz, and Ross Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com -- of Labaton
Sucharow LLP.

KBR and individual defendants are represented by Michael Holmes --
mholmes@velaw.com -- Jeffrey Johnston and Amy Tankersley --
atankersley@velaw.com -- of Vinson & Elkins LLP.

The case is Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System et al. v.
KBR et al., case number 4:14-cv-01287, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.


KEBAB GRILL: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Reyes Bonilla and Jose D. Reyes Bonilla, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kebab Grill, Inc.
d/b/a Wild Fig, WF Grill, Inc. d/b/a Wild Fig, Pideria, Inc. d/b/a
Wild Fig, WFMG, Inc. d/b/a Wild Fig, Ali Ugan a/k/a Alex Ugan and
Gwen Ugan a/k/a Wendy Ugan, Case No. 2:14-cv-07315 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven John Moser, Esq.
      Steven J. Moser, PC
      3 School Street, Suite 207B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


KIDDIE KORRAL: Recalls Girls Hoodies With Ponies
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kiddie Korral, Dallas, TX, announced a voluntary recall of about
2,300 Pink Pony Hoodies.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

A drawstring through the hood of the hoodies can pose a
strangulation hazard to children.  Drawstrings can become
entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school- bus
doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation
and/or entanglement hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.
In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Kiddie Korral girl's pink hooded sweatshirts
with red ponies and a drawstring through the hood.  The zippered
front hoodies have two front pockets, are made of 100% polyester
and were sold in sizes 2 through 12.  A label sewn into the
garment's neck seam reads "Kiddie Korral" and a label sewn into
the side seam has RN#117026 and style number 327.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/XdjOQO

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Children's boutiques, gift shops and other specialty retail stores
nationwide from December 2012 through November 2014 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the hoodies from children and
remove the drawstring to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers can
return the hoodies to the place of purchase for a full refund.


LAMPS PLUS: Judge Grants Final Approval to Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of
California gave final approval to the settlement in the case ANNIE
DUNHAM, LORI ALVES AND TOM ALLIE, individuals; and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAMPS
PLUS, INC., Defendant., Case No. SACV 12-1190-JLS (ANX) (C.D.
Cal.)

Pursuant to the Court's Order issued on October 21, 2014, granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
the Court certifies the following class: "All current and former
employees of Defendant who, from July 21, 2005 up to and including
the date of preliminary approval, worked as a retail store
manager, assistant manager, manager in training or regional
assistant in California."

Westrup & Associates is appointed as Class Counsel in the Action.
Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $23,000,
and reasonably incurred litigation costs in the amount of $10,000,
to be deducted and paid from the Gross Settlement Amount, as final
payment for and complete satisfaction of any and all attorneys'
fees and costs incurred by and/or owed to Class Counsel and any
other person or entity related to the Action. The award of
attorneys' fees and costs shall be administered pursuant to the
Amended Stipulation of Class Action Settlement. The Enhancement
Awards to each Class Representative in the amount of $2,500 are
fair and reasonable in light of the time and effort expended and
the risk assumed by them in prosecuting this action, and shall be
paid from the Gross Settlement Amount pursuant to the Amended
Stipulation of Class Action Settlement.

Rust Consulting, Inc. is appointed Claims Administrator.
Administration expenses incurred by the Claims Administrator in
the amount of $5,000 are approved and shall be paid from the Gross
Settlement Amount pursuant to the Amended Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement.

A copy of Judge Staton's judgment dated November 7, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/4H9epzfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
represented by:

     Cat-Tuong N Bulaon, Esq.
     Lawrence R Cagney, Esq.
     Phillip R Poliner, Esq.
     R Duane Westrup, Esq.
     WESTRUP KLICK LLP
     444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: 562-432-2551
     Facsimile: 562-435-4856

Lamps Plus Inc, a California corporation, Defendant, represented
by:

     Max C Fischer, Esq.
     Erica C Parks, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     555 West Fifth Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90013
     Telephone: 213-896-6000
     Facsimile: 213-896-6600
     Email: mfischer@sidley.com
            eparks@sidley.com


LENOVO GROUP: Recalls Computer Power Cords Due to Fire, Burk Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lenovo Inc., of Morrisville, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of
about 500,000 in the U.S. and 44,000 in Canada AC power cords.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The AC power cord can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.

There were no incidents that were reported in the U.S. or Canada.
Lenovo has received reports from outside the U.S. of 15 incidents
involving overheating, sparking, melting and burning.  No injuries
were reported.

The recall involves Lenovo's LS-15 AC power cord manufactured from
February 2011 to December 2011.  The power cords were distributed
with IdeaPad brand B-, G-, S-, U-, V- and Z-series laptop
computers and Lenovo brand B-, G- and V-series laptop computers.
The recalled power cords are black in color and have the "LS-15"
molded mark on the AC adapter end.  The manufacture date code in
the format REV: 00 YYMM is on a label attached to the cord.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/YeXyzv

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Laptop computers with the AC power cords were sold at computer and
electronics stores, authorized dealers and online at lenovo from
February 2011 through June 2012 for between $350 and $1,500.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalled
power cords and contact Lenovo for a free replacement.  Consumers
can continue to use the computer on battery power.


LESSEREVIL LLC: Falsely Marketed Chia Crisps Products, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Crane, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Lesserevil, LLC, Case No. 0:14-cv-62854 (S.D. Fla.,
December 16, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendants pervasive
pattern of fraudulent, deceptive, false, and otherwise improper
advertising, sales, and marketing practices of its Chia Crisps
products.

Lesserevil, LLC makes innovative & tasty snack food with healthier
ingredients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Rhead Shepherd, Esq.
      Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC
      1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 515-0123
      Facsimile: (954) 515-0124
      E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com
              nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


LIBERTY SILVER: Settles Securities Class Action for $1 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Silver Corp. on Dec. 8 disclosed that it has reached a
settlement in principle regarding the consolidated securities
class action filed in September 2013 in U.S. federal court in the
Southern District of Florida pertaining to anomalous trading
activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August
through October 2012.  The settlement, which is subject to final
documentation as well as review by the court, provides for a
payment of $1 million cash, to be paid by the Company's D&O
insurance coverage.  This settlement, without in any way
acknowledging any fault or liability, would lead to a full and
final dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Liberty
Silver, Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri in the litigation.
Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the
Company believes it is in the best interests of its stockholders
to focus its attention on its business and put the matter behind
it.  The settlement is subject to approval by the Court.

                   About Liberty Silver Corp.

Liberty -- http://www.libertysilvercorp.com-- is focused on
exploring and advancing mineral properties located in North
America.


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Dec. 2015 Jury Trial Set in Questcor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California set a jury trial for December 1, 2015 in In re Questcor
Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx), according to
Mallinckrodt Public Limited Company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2014.

On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals,
et al., No. SACvl2-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common
stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21,2012. The complaint
generally alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and
directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the
price of Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through
stock sales. The complaint asserts that Questcor and certain of
its officers and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange
Act"), by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for
indications other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale
and use of Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome,
reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and Questcor's
outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief
against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with
four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the
caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG
(FMOx). On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted in part and
denied in part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint. On October 29, 2013, Questcor filed an answer
to the consolidated amended complaint. Discovery is currently
ongoing. The Court set a jury trial for December 1, 2015.


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Denny v. Cadence Suit Voluntarily Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder suit Denny v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, according to
Mallinckrodt Public Limited Company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2014.

Several purported class action lawsuits have been filed in
February 2014 and March 2014 by purported holders of Cadence
common stock in connection with the Cadence Acquisition, including
in the Delaware Court of Chancery (consolidated under the caption
In re Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation), and
in California State Court, San Diego County (Denny v. Cadence
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Militello v. Cadence
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Schuon v. Cadence
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.). The actions bring claims against,
and generally allege that, the board of directors of Cadence
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the the Cadence
Acquisition by, among other things, failing to maximize
shareholder value, and the Delaware and Schuon actions further
allege that Cadence omitted to disclose allegedly material
information in its Schedule 14D-9. The lawsuits also allege, among
other things, that the Company aided and abetted the purported
breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits seek various forms of
relief, including but not limited to, rescission of the
transaction, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 7,
2014, following expedited discovery, the parties in the
consolidated Delaware action entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("the MOU"), which sets forth the parties' agreement
in principle for a settlement of those actions. The settlement
contemplated by the MOU will include, among other things, a
release of all claims relating to the Cadence Acquisition as set
forth in the MOU. The settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including, among other things, final court approval
following notice to the class. There have been no substantive
proceedings in any of the California actions. On July 29, 2014,
the Militello case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On
September 8, 2014, the Denny case was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Inks Agreement to Settle Suit Over Questcor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a consolidated suit over the merger of Mallinckrodt
Public Limited Company and Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reached
an agreement in principle that contemplates a stipulation of
settlement, according to Mallinckrodt's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2014.

Since the announcement of the merger with Questcor on April 7,
2014, several putative class actions have been filed by purported
holders of Questcor common stock in connection with the Company's
acquisition of Questcor (Hansen v. Thompson, et al., Heng v.
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Buck v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Ellerbeck v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., Yokem v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Richter v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Tramantano v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Crippen v.
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Patel v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Postow v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.). The actions were consolidated on
June 3, 2014. The consolidated complaint names as defendants, and
generally alleges that, the directors of Questcor breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition by, among
other things, agreeing to sell Questcor for inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. The
consolidated complaint also alleges that the Questcor directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly
material information to shareholders in connection with the
merger. The consolidated complaint also alleges, among other
things, that the company aided and abetted the purported breaches
of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief,
including but not limited to, rescission of the transaction,
damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On July 29, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Questcor agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transaction with the Company,
which are contained in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on July 30, 2014. Additionally, as part of the
settlement and pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, the
Company agreed to forbear from exercising certain rights under the
Merger Agreement with Questcor, as follows: the four business day
period referenced in Section 5.3(e) of the Merger Agreement will
be reduced to three business days. The memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.


MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Adams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Meadowbrook Financial Mortgage Bankers Corp. and
Donato Nicolo, Case No. 2:14-cv-07323 (E.D.N.Y., December 16,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants owns and operates a financial services company
located at 825 East Gate Boulevard #200, Garden City, NY 11530

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose G. Santiago, Esq.
      THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C.
      201 Moreland Road, Suite 10
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Telephone: (631) 240-4355
      Facsimile: (631) 406-4911
      E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Accused of Illegal Use of Shadow Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Del Carmen Robainas, Giovanni Valladares, Jose A.
Capablanca, Modesto Martin, Jacqueline J. Russ, Allen Perez and
Gregory Truitt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Metlife,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09926 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants' use of shadow insurance constituted a
misrepresentation of the financial condition of MetLife, and the
adequacy of the reserves and reserve system upon which MetLife
operates.

Metlife, Inc. is a life insurance company organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal place
of business located at 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
      MAZZEO SONG & BRADHAM LLP
      444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 599-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 599-8400
      E-mail: pkatzman@mazzeosong.com

         - and -

      William R. Scherer Jr., Esq.
      Albert F. Frevola Jr., Esq.
      Joshua D. Clark, Esq.
      CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP
      633 South Federal Highway, 8th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 462-5500
      Facsimile: (954) 463-9244
      E-mail: Wscherer@conradscherer.com
              afrevola@conradscherer.com
              iclark@conradscherer.com


MICROSOFT CORP: School Board May Apply for Settlement Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wind, writing for WCFCourier.com, reports that the Waterloo
Community School Board is considering to apply for Microsoft
settlement funds that are the result of a class-action lawsuit
brought by Iowa consumers and businesses concerning some of the
company's software.


MIDWEST MEDICAL: Settles Class Action Over Medical Records
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a settlement
has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Midwest Medical
Records Association Inc.

Class members who alleged they paid more for copies of medical
records will be eligible for a refund, according to a settlement
document filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago.

Class counsel will receive $1 million in attorneys fees and
$75,000 in costs and expenses.

Virginia Solon and Cynthia Zaletel will each receive an incentive
award of $1,500, according to the settlement document.

"The defendants have vigorously denied and continue to deny each
and all of the claims and contentions alleged by plaintiffs and
the class, including all claims that any of their conduct
constitutes wrongdoing or gives rise to any legal liability" the
settlement document states.

The defendants assert that the general per-page rates of the code
during the class period did not govern the copying of electronic
or digital medical records, according to the settlement document.

"Nonetheless, the defendants wish to settle and compromise the
litigation to avoid further substantial expense and the
inconvenience and distraction of protracted and burdensome
litigation," the settlement document states.

The class action lawsuit was initially filed in 2004 in Cook
Circuit Court.

The plaintiffs claimed from Oct. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2007,
Midwest charged excessive per-page fees for copying electronic or
digital medical records that exceeded the specified per-page rates
permitted by Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

Under the settlement, each class member who submits a valid and
timely claim form may be entitled to a refund equal to 70 percent
of the amount each class member paid in excess of the amount the
class member would have paid if the amount billed by Midwest had
equaled the amount at the general per-page rates.

The plaintiffs are represented by Arthur Loevy, Michael Kanovitz,
Jon Loevy, Roshna Bala Keen, Scott Rauscher and Edward M. Burnes
of Loevy and Loevy in Chicago.

Midwest is represented by Alan R. Borlack -- aborlack@bbn-law.com
-- of Bailey Borlack Nadelhoffer LLC in Chicago.

John Cardone, Mark Protus and William Jackson were represented by
Richard J. Mikuta of Kendle Mikuta Fenstermaker in Chicago.

All opt-outs, objection and claim forms must be postmarked by
Jan. 19.

Cook Circuit Court case number: 04-CH-7119


MIGDALAS IP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kinard" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Demario Kinard, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Migdalas IP Holding, LLC d/b/a "Migs" and
Kess, LLC d/b/a Migs of Newberry, Case No. 8:14-cv-04740 (D.S.C.,
December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay proper overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate 7 restaurants in South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Janet Elizabeth Rhodes, Esq.
      CALLISON TIGHE AND ROBINSON
      PO Box 1390
      Columbia, SC 29202-1390
      Telephone: (803) 404-6900
      Facsimile: (803) 404-6901
      E-mail: JanetRhodes@callisontighe.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Settles Faulty Brakes Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan North
America Inc. will pay vehicle owners up to $800 each under a
proposed deal ending a class action alleging that the braking
system in certain Nissan trucks and SUVs is prone to sudden
failure, according to a motion filed by the plaintiffs in
California federal court on Dec. 5.

Under the deal, current and former owners of approximately 350,000
2004-2008 Nissan Titans, Armadas and Infiniti QX56 vehicles across
the country will be able to file claims seeking reimbursement for
out-of-pocket expenses they incurred to repair or replace a
defective delta stroke sensor, which is a component of the faulty
braking system.

Nissan will offer redress starting at $20 for owners of vehicles
that had more than 120,000 miles at the time of the repair, and up
to $800 for vehicles that had less than 48,000 miles at the time
of repair, according to the motion.

"There can be little doubt that the proposed settlement is 'within
the range of possible approval.'  The settlement addresses the
safety defect that was alleged in this lawsuit and provides a fair
mechanism for reimbursement of the cost of repairing or replacing
[delta stroke sensor] parts that have failed," the plaintiffs
said.

The motion pointed to the uncertainty of proceeding with the suit,
noting that Nissan denies it had engaged in any wrongful conduct
or that it had known about the defect.  The automaker also claimed
that it wasn't obligated to disclose the defect because the
alleged defect didn't involve a material safety issue.

The plaintiffs asked the court to certify a nationwide proposed
class of consumers who owned or formerly owned the affected
vehicles and were forced to replace the faulty sensor.  Those
plaintiffs with personal injury claims relating to the affected
vehicles are excluded from the class, according to the motion.

The court had previously certified a class of California consumers
in the suit in December 2013, and the class proposed in the Dec. 5
motion is an expansion of that, the plaintiffs said.  The instant
suit incorporates a related class action filed by Tom West, now a
class representative in this suit, in Miller County, Arkansas, in
2011.

The agreement, which was the result of three mediation sessions
and months of "dedicated" negotiations, also sets aside $3.4
million for attorneys' fees and expenses and $5,000 for each of
the four class representatives, according to the motion.  The
proposed attorneys' fees are below class counsel's lodestar, the
plaintiffs said.

Notice will be distributed to the class via direct mail and to
addresses obtained through Nissan or public records utilizing
vehicle identification numbers, the motion says.  Class members
will be directed to a website and a toll-free number maintained by
the settlement administrator that will provide information
concerning the settlement, including, if requested, a copy of the
long form notice.

Originally filed by Brandon and Erin Banks in April 2011, the
complaint alleged that the affected vehicles posed a serious
safety threat to consumers because the delta stroke sensor, an
electronic component of the affected vehicles that controls
critical safety aspects of braking, was prone to failure.  The
defect caused drivers to be suddenly unable to stop their vehicles
within a reasonably safe time and distance, or at all, according
to the suit.

Furthermore, the complaint said, the automaker knew about the
defect but hid it from consumers "to [Nissan's] significant
financial gain."

The plaintiffs are represented by Clifford L. Carter and Kirk J.
Wolden of Carter Wolden Curtis LLP; Michael F. Ram --
mram@rocklawcal.com -- and Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com --
of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP; and F. Jerome Tapley and
Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz III or Cory Watson Crowder & Degaris PC.

Nissan is represented by Timothy W. Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com
-- and G. Charles Nierlich -- gnierlich@gibsondunn.com -- of
Gibson Dunn.

The case is Banks et al v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al, case
number 4:11-cv-02022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Dec. 8 issued a statement in regards to the
announcement of a proposed class action settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN RE MODUSLINK GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-11044
SECURITIES LITIGATION

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

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF MODUSLINK GLOBAL SOLUTIONS,
INC. ("MODUSLINK") FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 8, 2012,
INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS")

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

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED pursuant to an Order of the Court, that a
hearing will be held on March 11, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom
11, 5th Floor before the Honorable Denise J. Casper at the United
States District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, to determine whether: (1) a
proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of claims in the above-
captioned lawsuit (the "Litigation") in exchange for a payment of
$4,000,000, as set forth in the October 23, 2014 Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation"), should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation; (3) the
plan for distributing the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Plan of
Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate; and (4) the
applications for fees and expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and a Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
at In re: ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation,
c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 3967, Portland, OR 97208-3967;
877-835-1237.  Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can
also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.moduslinksecuritieslitigation.com

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ModusLink common stock
during the period between September 26, 2007 through June 8, 2012,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement.  You may
obtain copies of the Stipulation, the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and the Proof of Claim
and Release by writing to ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, PO Box 3967,
Portland, OR 97208-3967, or downloading them at
www.moduslinksecuritieslitigation.com
You must submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no
later than March 9, 2015 to be eligible for any payment from the
Settlement proceeds.

You may request to be excluded from the Settlement Class by
following the instructions in the Notice.  Any class member who
does not timely and validly request exclusion by February 9, 2015
will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant
to the Stipulation.

You may object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
applications for fees and expenses by sending (a) a written
statement identifying your name, address, and telephone number,
and, if represented by counsel, your counsel's name and contact
information; (b) proof of ownership of ModusLink common stock
during the Settlement Class Period, including the number of
ModusLink shares and the date or dates of purchase; (c) a
statement explaining your objection and your reasons for such
objection; and (d) any supporting documentation. You must send
these materials by first class mail to the following addresses so
they are received by February 25, 2015:

The Court

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS - Boston
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02210

Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel

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

Counsel for Defendants ModusLink and Steven Crane

James W. Prendergast
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Counsel for Defendant Joseph C. Lawler

Thomas P. Cimino, Jr.
Vedder Price P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call 877-
835-1237 or contact Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel at the address listed
above.  PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: December 8, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SOURCE: Saxena White P.A.

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Violations of RESPA, FDCPA & ECOA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Ronald Burke, on behalf himself and others similarly
situated v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Everbank, Everbank Financial
Corporation, Everhome Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00837 (E.D.
Va., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Real Estate and Settlement Procedures Act, Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is a foreign limited liability company
doing business as a mortgage originator and servicer.

Everbank Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation doing
business as a bank, as well as mortgage investor, originator and
servicer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
      Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
      763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
             srotkis@clalegal.com

         - and -

      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7572
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
             aguzzo@kellvandcrandall.com

         - and -

      Brandon Snodgrass, Esq.
      Matthew Felty, Esq.
      SNODGRASS LAW FIRM, P.L.C
      380 Porterfield Highway, P.O. Box 1417
      Abingdon, VA 24212-1417
      Telephone (276) 676-2660
      Facsimile (276) 676-2667


NIX SPE: Faces "Russi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Russi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated V. Nix SPE, LLC, and Nix Hospitals System, LLC, d/b/a Nix
Healthcare System, Case No. 5:14-cv-01094 (W.D. Tex., December 16,
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 hospital and healthcare system in
San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
      Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
      THE MORALES LAW FIRM
      115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
              ahartry@themoralesfirm.com


NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Open Vest Sweaters Due to Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nordstrom Inc., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,030 Open Vest Sweaters by Leith.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The sweaters fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
wearing apparel, posing a burn injury hazard to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Leith brand women's textured open vest
sleeveless sweaters.  The sweaters are 35 1/2 inches long.  They
were sold in black and cream, and in sizes extra small - XS, small
- S, medium - M, large - L and extra large - XL. Care labels sewn
into the garments read, "Leith," "Made in China," "83% cotton" and
"17% nylon."

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/KjMAEh

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Nordstrom stores nationwide and online at Nordstrom.com from
August 2014 through September 2014 for about $70.

Consumers should immediately stop wearing the recalled sweaters
and contact Nordstrom to return them for a full refund.


OW BUNKER: Danish Investors Mull Class Action Over Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Fixsen, writing for Investment & Pensions Europe, reports
that a group of Danish institutional investors including seven
pension funds has launched an investigation into the collapse of
shipping fuel company OW Bunker -- which is set to cost them
hundreds of millions of kroner in investment losses.

Statutory pension fund ATP and labour-market funds PFA, AP
Pension, DIP, Industriens Pension, JOP and PensionDanmark, as well
as companies SEB and Maj Invest, said in a joint statement they
had initiated an investigation into the company, which filed for
bankruptcy in early November.

The statement said: "The purpose of the investigation is to
understand the events leading up to the bankruptcy and to obtain
information that can be used to determine whether there are
grounds for asserting legal liability."

The investors described the demise of OW Bunker as "a significant,
extraordinary and highly negative event" in the Danish stock
market.

ATP has said it invested around DKK150 million (EUR20.1 million)
in OW Bunker.

Engineers' pension fund DIP said it stood to lose DKK16 million
because of the collapse, and lawyers and economists' pension fund
JOP put its exposure to the failed company at DKK9 million.

Meanwhile, Industriens Pension said it had lost DKK15 million from
the collapse -- equivalent to an average of DKK35 per scheme
member.

The group of investors said there was an strong need to understand
events leading up to the collapse, as well as to determine who was
responsible.  They had a duty to members and clients to find out
whether they could recover some of the losses, they said.

The investigation will be carried out by law firms Accura and
Bruun & Hjejle, and assisted by audit firm EY, the investors said.
It will cover not only the events leading up to the bankruptcy but
also those surrounding the IPO in March this year.

"The investigation will especially focus on errors and flaws in
the prospectus prepared in connection with OW Bunker's IPO,
liability in connection with the offering and sale of shares in OW
Bunker, as well as the management's liability for OW Bunker's
operations in the period from the IPO until the bankruptcy," the
investors said.  They said each participating investor would
decide what course of action to take, based on the findings of the
investigation.

OW Bunker, whose main business was to supply fuel to ships, was
the second largest Danish company in terms of turnover in 2013.

Its shares were listed on the Copenhagen stock exchange on
March 28 this year, with new shares being issued and those of its
main shareholder, Swedish investment fund Altor, being sold.

In early November, OW Bunker said it discovered a fraud in its
Singapore subsidiary and that preliminary findings suggested it
could lose around $125 million (EUR100 million) from the crime.

However, it also said that, separately, it had discovered a
"significant risk-management loss" of around $150 million.

It said it was forced to file for bankruptcy after banks failed to
provide financing for a restructuring.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Investor Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Blount, writing for Reuters, reports that state-controlled oil
company Petroleo Brasileiro SA and its top executives face a
class-action lawsuit in a federal court in New York over an
alleged contract fixing, bribery and kickback scheme that lawyers
say inflated the value of the company's assets.

The suit was filed by law firm Wolf Popper LLP in the Southern
District of New York on Dec. 8 on behalf of investors who bought
U.S.-traded shares of the Brazilian company, commonly known as
Petrobras, between May 20, 2010, and Nov. 21, 2014.  The case,
which will require a judge to certify that a class action can
proceed in civil court, seeks a jury trial and as yet unspecified
damages.

The complaint alleges that Rio de Janeiro-based Petrobras "made
false and misleading statements by misrepresenting facts and
failing to disclose a culture of corruption at the company that
consisted of a multi-billion dollar money-laundering and bribery
scheme embedded in the company since 2006."

During the period covered by the lawsuit, Petrobras' market value
dropped to about $60 billion from about $150 billion, even though
the company sold nearly $70 billion in new shares in September
2010 in what was then the world's largest-ever offering of stock.

A copy of the suit filed with the court on Dec. 8 says Wolf Popper
is working with Brazilian firm "Almeida Advogado."

"U.S. securities law is a significant factor in deterring this
kind of behavior," Robert C. Finkel -- rfinkel@wolfpopper.com -- a
Wolf Popper attorney working on the case, said in a telephone
interview from New York. "The only way you can deter this kind of
behavior is by fining executive officers liable for securities
fraud."

Mr. Finkel is confident he will be able to enforce judgment on
Petrobras and its executives if he wins.  Investors interested in
becoming lead plaintiffs have until Feb. 6 to file a motion with
the court, a Wolf Popper statement said.

"There is a good track record for dealing with cases related to
the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," he said.  "They
registered their securities here, they are subject to U.S. law."

The suit said investors were harmed because Petrobras over valued
its assets, the result of a scheme in which Petrobras and
contractors inflated the cost of contracts.  According to
Brazilian investigators, much of the over-charging was passed on
to political parties and politicians in the form of campaign
contributions and bribes.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Gets Citation in New York Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Boadle, writing for Reuters, reports that Brazil's state-
controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA received a citation
on Dec. 9 in the class-action lawsuit filed in a New York court
over billions of dollars in investor losses stemming from an
alleged bribe and money-laundering scheme.

The citation came from an investor who claims the company,
commonly known as Petrobras, made misleading statements to the
market, the company said in a securities filing.  The investor,
whose name is Peter Kaltman, is suing for compensation for share
price losses and is seeking to represent all investors who bought
depositary receipts of the Rio de Janeiro-based company, the
statement said.


POST HOLDINGS: Hearings in Antitrust Suit v. Michael Foods Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings on class certification in an antitrust suit against
Michael Foods, Inc. were scheduled for December 2014 for direct
purchaser plaintiffs and February 2015 for indirect purchaser
plaintiffs, according to Post Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. Plaintiffs seek to
represent nationwide classes of direct and indirect purchasers,
and allege that defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs
by participating in animal husbandry, egg-export and other
programs of various egg-industry associations. In December 2008,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Between late
2010 and early 2012, a number of companies, each of which would be
part of the purported class in the antitrust action, brought
separate actions against defendants. These "tag-along" cases,
brought primarily by various grocery chains and food companies,
assert essentially the same allegations as in the main action. All
but one of the tag-along cases were either filed in or transferred
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where they are being
treated as related to the main action. Fact discovery concluded on
April 30, 2014. The class-certification phase of the case is
currently in process. Hearings on class certification are
scheduled for December 2014 for direct purchaser plaintiffs and
February 2015 for indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

Michael Foods received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") issued
by the Florida Attorney General on November 27, 2008, regarding an
investigation of possible anticompetitive activities "relating to
the production and sale of eggs or egg products." The CID
requested information and documents related to the pricing and
supply of shell eggs and egg products, as well as Michael Foods'
participation in various programs of United Egg Producers. Michael
Foods has fully cooperated with the Florida Attorney General's
Office to date. Further compliance is suspended pending
proceedings in the civil antitrust litigation.


PRO ARMOR: Recalls Doors for Polaris RZR 800 and 900 Utility Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LSI Products Inc. dba Pro Armor, Riverside, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 300 utility vehicle doors.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The latch pin can disengage from the latch and allow the door to
open while the vehicle is moving, posing a risk of ejection of an
unrestrained rider and impact or laceration hazards.

Pro Armor has received 23 reports of the latch pin disengaging.
No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Pro Armor doors sold as accessories for model
year 2010 through 2014 Polaris RZR 800 and RZR 900 models.  The
doors have a black powder coated finish and have four major
components: a large square sheet metal panel, a smaller triangular
sheet metal panel, a tubular metal frame and a latch.  The panels
are interchangeable and come in two styles.  One style has cutout
vents along the top and the other style has none.  The smaller
panel has a white Pro Armor logo below the cutouts.  The door
frame has the logo and "Pro Armor" on the top tube.  The latch is
silver with a black locking mechanism that attaches to the vehicle
frame and a handle that attaches to the door.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Syv3Cz

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Powersports dealers and online nationwide from June 2014
through October 2014 for about $550 to $600 for the set of doors.

Consumers should immediately stop using vehicles with these doors
and contact Pro Armor for a free repair kit.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(K) Plan
----------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a RadioShack employee sued the company
on Dec. 5 over allegations that it breached its financial duties
when managing retirement plans.

Jeffrey Snyder is seeking class status for employees who
participated in RadioShack's 401(k) plan, which included
investments in the company's stock.

The lawsuit alleges the managers of the retirement plan violated
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act after RadioShack's
stock fell significantly over the last few years and the company
continued to offer it as an investment option to employees.

On Dec. 5, 2011, RadioShack's stock stood at $11.44 per share.
About a month later, the stock ended the year at $9.29 per share.
By March 2013, the stock stood at $3.39 per share.

The lawsuit said even if outside investors bought stock, the
managers of the 401(k) still had a duty under the law not to take
"excessive risk" with the investments.

Mr. Snyder is represented by Roger L. Mandel -- rlm@lhlaw.net --
of Lackey Hershman, LLP; Gerald D. Wells and Robery J. Gray, of
Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP; and Steven L. Rovner, of Rovner,
Allen, Rovner, Zimmerman and Nash.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas-
Forth Worth Division case number 4:14-cv-00978.


RAYMOND JAMES: No Class Yet in Suit by Regions Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------
No class has been certified yet in a suit filed on behalf of
shareholders of Regions Financial Corporation and investors who
purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan
Keegan Fund complex, according to Raymond James Financial Inc.'s
Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions, have
been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state
courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions and investors who
purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan
Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds"). The Regions Funds were
formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity
which was at one time a subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan
affiliates, but an entity which was not part of the company's
Morgan Keegan acquisition The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Regions Funds and the
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts
relating to the activities of the funds. In August 2013, the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
approved the settlement of the class action and the derivative
action regarding the closed end funds for $62 million and $6
million, respectively. No class has been certified. Certain of the
shareholders in the funds and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in the class action lawsuits.


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Class Lawsuit by Municipal Bond Holders
------------------------------------------------------------
MK & Co. is facing a certified class suit by holders of certain
municipal bonds that it underwrote according to Raymond James
Financial Inc.'s Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

The states of Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged
securities law violations by MK & Co. in the underwriting and sale
of certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action was brought by
the Missouri Secretary of State in April 2013, seeking monetary
penalties and other relief. In November 2013, the state dismissed
this enforcement action and refiled the same claims as a civil
action in the Circuit Court for Boone County, Missouri. Civil
actions were brought by certain investors of the bonds beginning
in March 2012, seeking a return of their investment and
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. A punitive class
action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the bonds on
September 4, 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. This action was certified as a class action representing
all purchasers of the bonds between July 23, 2010 and September
30, 2011. These actions are in various stages of litigation.


RETROPHIN INC: Faces "Sandler" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Sandler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Retrophin, Inc., Martin Shkreli,
Marc L. Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley, Case No. 1:14-cv-09915
(S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Retrophin, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development, acquisition, and commercialization of therapies for
the treatment of serious, catastrophic, or rare diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ROMAGICA CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Segundo Angel Yamba Lopez, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees v. Romagica Corp. d/b/a Celeste
Restaurant, and Carmine Mitroni, Case No. 1:14-cv-09914 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Celeste restaurant located at 502
Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


SALSA CYCLES: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Salsa Cycles, a wholly-owned brand of Quality Bicycle Products
Inc., of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about
2,500 Salsa Bearpaw Bicycle Forks.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle fork can bend or break, posing a fall hazard to the
rider.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves all aluminum Salsa Bearpaw forks sold
separately and on Mukluk bicycles.  The forks have date code
20130524, 20130710 or 20130826 stamped on the fork steerer,
followed by "CWI2201BAN2" and a Salsa compass graphic on the bend
of the fork blades.  Consumers or the dealer will need to
disassemble the front of the bicycle to access the steerer tube
with the date code and model information.  The forks were sold in
"tequila lime" with black paint, "metallic gold," red and black.
The bikes were sold in sizes x-small, small, medium, large and x-
large.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/MSeRs2

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Sold
at Bicycle stores nationwide and online at various websites from
September 2013 through November 2014 for about $250 separately and
for between $1,850 and $4,400 for the bicycles.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the
recalled Salsa Bearpaw forks and contact a Salsa dealer for a free
inspection and replacement fork.


SANTA ROSA, CA: To Appeal Ruling in Suit Over Impounding Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCallum, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that Santa
Rosa plans to appeal a federal judge's ruling that police violated
the constitutional rights of an unlicensed driver by impounding
his truck for 30 days without a warrant.

If it stands, the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Thelton
Henderson could have statewide implications because many law
enforcement agencies have similar impound policies.

"It's a big deal that the judge found that they have been seizing
vehicles without a warrant in violation of the constitution," said
Alicia Roman, one of the attorneys representing plaintiff Simeon
Ruiz.

City Attorney Caroline Fowler agreed that the ruling represents a
"case of first impression" that could have sweeping implications
on impound policies of law enforcement agencies around the state.

"We would like a ruling from a higher court to clarify this
important public policy issue," Ms. Fowler said.

A ruling on the issue is important because other courts have held
that impoundments in nearly identical situations are legal, and
because it could impact the scope of the class-action status being
pursued in the case, Ms. Fowler said.

The vehicle impound policies of law enforcement agencies have been
a flashpoint in the immigration debate in Sonoma County.  Critics
contend police have misused DUI checkpoints to seize the vehicles
of sober but unlicensed drivers, primarily undocumented immigrants
who cannot obtain a driver's license under California law.  Others
argue that unlicensed drivers are inherently more dangerous than
licensed ones, as evidenced by studies and local accidents,
including one in 2011 that killed a 4-year-old boy in a West Ninth
Street crosswalk.

Judge Henderson ruled that the city's justifications for
impounding Mr. Ruiz's vehicle -- that it was allowed by state law,
that doing so cleared the vehicle from the road and that Mr. Ruiz
was a dangerous driver -- were not compelling enough to merit
taking away his only mode of transportation without a warrant.

"For many people, the use of a car is essential for such necessary
activities as getting to work and purchasing food; the loss of a
vehicle for 30 days can cause significant disruption in a person's
life," Judge Henderson wrote.

Mr. Ruiz, a local vineyard worker, was stopped at a DUI/license
checkpoint in September 2011.  He didn't have a California license
and he previously had been cited several times for driving without
a license.  Ms. Roman declined to comment on his immigration
status, but immigration rights advocates have said the impound
policies disproportionately impact undocumented immigrants.

Police impounded Mr. Ruiz's Silverado pickup even though he had a
friend with a valid license who could have taken possession of it.
His request to get his truck back several days later was denied.

Because he didn't have a vehicle, Mr. Ruiz lost out on a week of
work.  He also had to pay a hefty storage fee of about $2,200 to
get his truck back, Ms. Roman said.

A state law passed later in 2011 set tighter restrictions on how
sobriety checkpoints are run, with an eye toward making it easier
for undocumented immigrants to keep their vehicles.

The city argued that its 30-day impound policy was legal because
it was allowed by state law.  The judge ruled that being allowable
by state law does not mean it does not violate the Fourth
Amendment right around unreasonable search and seizure.

The city also argued that the impound was valid under the
"community caretaking" exception, which allows police to remove
vehicles from the street without a warrant "when the vehicle poses
an obstacle to the flow of traffic or otherwise jeopardizes public
safety."

That might justify impounding a car for a short period, but not 30
days, the judge found.

Finally, the city argued that Ruiz's previous violations for
driving without a license showed he was unsafe.  Mr. Ruiz had
previously had a driver's license in Mexico, and the city offered
"virtually no evidence Ruiz himself was unsafe."

"None of these arguments are convincing," Judge Henderson wrote.

The City Council voted 4-2 last month to appeal the ruling.  The
city has since asked Henderson to suspend the federal case to
allow them to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals

Sonoma County is a defendant in the same lawsuit for a nearly
identical circumstance, but a ruling on the legality of the
county's impound policy is on hold while it appeals a different
legal issue in the case, Fowler said.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP representing investors of Sarepta
Therapeutics, Inc. on Dec. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of Sarepta securities between April 21, 2014 and
October 27, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Lesley Portnoy or Casey Sadler at (888) 773-9224 or
(310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter. If you inquire by email please include your mailing
address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Sarepta is engaged in the discovery and development of RNA-based
therapeutics for the treatment of rare and infectious diseases.
The Company's lead product candidate is eteplirsen, which is in
clinical development for the treatment of Duchenne muscular
dystrophy.  The Complaint alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the Company failed to provide sufficient data
for its New Drug Application ("NDA") submission for marketing
approval of eteplirsen; (2) as a result, the Company's NDA for
eteplirsen would likely be filed in mid-2015, rather than the end
of 2014; and (3), the Company's statements about Sarepta's
business, operations and prospects, including statements about
eteplirsen's prospects for FDA approval for the treatment of
Duchenne muscular dystrophy, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 27, 2014, the Company announced a regulatory update
concerning discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
related to Sarepta's NDA for eteplirsen.  According to the
Company, following a Pre-NDA meeting in September 2014, the FDA
provided updated guidance regarding additional data required as
part of, or at the time of, the NDA submission, including: (i)
minimum duration of safety in new patients exposed to eteplirsen;
(ii) patient-level natural history data from independent academic
institutions; and (iii) MRI data from a recent study conducted by
an independent academic group.  Following this news, Sarepta
shares declined more than 32%, or $7.65 per share, to close at
$15.91 per share on October 27, 2014, on volume of more than 15
million shares.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve
as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, or Casey Sadler,
Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by
e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls PowerPact J-Frame Circuit Breakers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Schneider Electric USA Inc., of Columbia, Mo., and Tlaxcala,
Mexico, announced a voluntary recall of about 62,500 Circuit
breakers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The circuit breaker will not trip during an overload condition,
posing a risk of fire, burns and electrical shock.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves PowerPact J-frame molded case circuit breakers
with thermal-magnetic trip units.  The circuit breakers are made
of black plastic and have a three-position breaker handle that
indicates whether the breaker is off, on or tripped.  The recalled
circuit breakers are rated for 150 to 250 amps, have interruption
ratings of D, G, J, L and R.  They were manufactured in two pole
and three pole configurations with either lug-in/lug-out or plug-
in (I-Line) style connectors.

Brand name "Schneider Electric" or "Square D" is on a yellow
sticker above the breaker handle and on the top of a label on the
side of the circuit breaker.  A label on the front of the circuit
breaker to the left of the breaker handle has the catalog number
at the top.  The number also appears on a label on the side of the
breaker.  Schneider Electric catalog numbers begin with "NJ" and
Square D catalog numbers begin with "J."

A label on the front of the circuit breaker to the right of the
breaker handle has the date code in the lower right corner.
Recalled circuit breakers were manufactured from March 24, 2014
through Sept. 26, 2014 and have date codes 14131 through 14395.
The date codes are in the YYWWD format (example: 14131 = year
2014, week 13, day of the work week 1/ Monday).

Breakers with these catalog numbers are being recalled:

   Catalog Number    Breaker Type
   --------------    ------------
   (N)JDX26XXX        2 Pole
   (N)JGX26XXX        2 Pole
   (N)JJX26XXX        2 Pole
   (N)JLX26XXX        2 Pole
   (N)JDX36XXX        3 Pole
   (N)JGX36XXX        3 Pole
   (N)JJX36XXX        3 Pole
   (N)JLX36XXX        3 Pole
   (N)JRX36XXX        3 Pole

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/E6DsK8

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and Mexico and sold
at authorized Schneider Electric distributors, original equipment
manufacturers and in factory assembled panel boards from March
2014 through September 2014 for between $2,900 and $11,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled circuit
breakers and contact Schneider Electric for either a free
replacement circuit breaker and a credit of up to $300 per address
to cover labor costs for installation by a certified electrician
or a handle update kit and a credit of up to $150 per address to
cover labor costs for installation by a certified electrician.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Litigation Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-
01592-JAH-RBB continues in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, according to The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory
and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild
bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously
pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who
purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert
hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual,
compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble); reimbursement,
restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred;
injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.


SEAWORLD PARKS: Sued Over Automatic Annual Pass Renewals
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment was
sued on Dec. 3 over allegations that it automatically renewed
annual passes without consumers' consent and didn't follow the
wording of its own contract when confronted with excessive
charges.

A class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida details the allegations of lead plaintiff
Jason Herman, a Florida resident who purchased a one-year adult
EZPay to SeaWorld in Orlando and Busch Gardens in Tampa.

Mr. Herman expected his initial payment of $35.40 on March 18,
2013 to be followed by 11 additional monthly charges of the same
amount.  However, payments continued to be charged to his credit
card through Sept. 18, he said.

A SeaWorld customer service representative later told Mr. Herman
the wording on the contract stated that any pass not paid for in
less than 12 months would renew automatically on a month-to-month
basis, the complaint says.  The lawsuit contends that this wording
was not included in confirming emails, receipts, tickets or
passes, and that Mr. Herman's request for a refund was declined.

The lawsuit claims that two separate telephone conversations with
SeaWorld customer service representatives failed to provide access
to a contract with that wording.  He later found it online.

The suit further claims that despite SeaWorld's allegedly hidden
contract, the company was still not authorized to automatically
renew the passes.  In Mr. Herman's example, his pass was purchased
on March 18, 2013, and the 11th subsequent payment was charged to
his credit card on Feb. 18 -- fully paying off the cost of the
annual pass in 11 months.

The lawsuit proposes a class of SeaWorld customers from Florida,
Texas, Virginia and California who continued to be charged for
their EZpay passes after fully paying for them in less than 12
months.

SeaWorld operates 11 theme parks in the United States and hosted
23.4 million guests in 2013 with more than $1.4 billion in
revenues.

Attorney Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C. Hasanbasic are representing
the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida case number
8:14-cv-03028


SEADRILL LTD: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on Dec. 8 disclosed that it has
filed a securities fraud class action against SeaDrill Limited and
certain of its senior executives in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case alleges that the defendants made materially false or
misleading statements with respect to the Company's commitment and
ability to continuing to pay a dividend to the exclusion of other
opportunities and needs for the same capital.  A November 26,
2014, press release by the Company brought these facts to light by
announcing that the Company had decided to suspend payment of its
dividend.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased shares of SeaDrill between July 10, 2014 and November
25, 2014, inclusive.  If you are a member of the Class and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff, then you must move the Court no later
than February 3, 2015. You are, however, under no obligation to
move for appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you would like to discuss this investigation, or if you have
any questions concerning your rights as a potential lead
plaintiff, you may contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham or Philip T. Taylor
of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP toll free at (800) 440-8986,
or via e-mail at jabraham@aftlaw.com or ptaylor@aftlaw.com

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, which is based in New York and
has an office in California, concentrates its practice in
shareholder and securities class action cases.


SHAPIRO BROWN: Faces "Burke" Suit Over Foreclosure Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Ronald Burke, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Shapiro, Brown & Alt, LLP and Professional Foreclosure
Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00838 (E.D. Va., December 16, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systemic practice of law
skirting and deception designed for the dual purposes of speeding
up consumer foreclosures and ensuring that their business model
had the lowest cost structure that they could construct.

Shapiro, Brown & Alt, LLP owns and operates a debt collection
company located at is located at 236 Clearfield Avenue, Suite 215,
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462.

Professional Foreclosure Corporation is engaged in the business of
collecting delinquent debts and conducting foreclosure sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
      Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
      763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
             srotkis@clalegal.com

         - and -

      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7572
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
             aguzzo@kellvandcrandall.com

         - and -

      Brandon Snodgrass, Esq.
      Matthew Felty, Esq.
      SNODGRASS LAW FIRM, P.L.C
      380 Porterfield Highway, P.O. Box 1417
      Abingdon, VA 24212-1417
      Telephone (276) 676-2660
      Facsimile (276) 676-2667


SHELL OIL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon recently denied a motion to dismiss a putative
nationwide class action brought against Shell Oil for alleged
breach of contract, false advertising and an array of state
consumer protection allegations.

In the action captioned Kearney v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC d/b/a
Shell Oil Products US, 14CV254, Shell Oil moved to dismiss the
putative class action complaint.  While the court dismissed
several state law statutory claims, the court refused to dismiss
plaintiffs' nationwide breach of contract claim.

The Shell Oil Advertisement: A Contract with Consumers?

Specifically, the advertisement at issue in the action was part of
Shell's "Ski Free" promotion and, according to Plaintiffs,
promised: "Buy 10 gallons of fuel, get a voucher for a free lift
ticket."  In reality, once Plaintiffs purchased ten gallons of
fuel, they received a "two for one" coupon that allowed applicable
consumers the right to obtain a free lift ticket only after
purchasing a lift ticket at full price at a participating ski
resort.

The only advertisement that the Plaintiffs saw was a sign
promising a free ski lift ticket if they purchased ten gallons of
fuel.  The Court held that the "clear offer in the advertisement
established a unilateral contract, and Plaintiffs accepted the
offer through performance by purchasing ten gallons of fuel at a
Shell station participating in the 'Ski Free' promotion."  From
the clear language of the advertisement, the Court held that it
was reasonable for a consumer to believe that if he or she
purchased ten gallons of fuel at a participating Shell gas
station, he or she would get a free lift ticket.  Therefore, the
Court denied Shell's motion to dismiss the breach of contract
cause of action and allowed the false advertising class action to
proceed.

The Importance of Truth in Advertising

The Federal Trade Commission and the plaintiffs' class action bar
closely scrutinize the truth (or deceptiveness) of all types of
advertising and marketing materials.  Large settlements and court
judgments have been entered against advertisers and retailers that
fail to follow applicable state and federal advertising rules and
regulations.  As such, it is critical for marketers to secure
seasoned advertising counsel in connection with prospective
marketing campaigns or risk facing a false advertising
investigation or lawsuit.


SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Inks MoU to Settle Securities Litigations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma-Aldrich Corporation entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Litigation providing for
the settlement of the St. Louis Litigation and the dismissal of
the St. Louis Litigation and the Delaware Litigation upon entry of
a final order by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis
approving the settlement, according to the company's Nov. 25,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On September 22, 2014, Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company" or "Sigma-Aldrich"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and
among Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, a German corporation with
general partners ("Parent"), Mario II Finance Corp., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), and the Company, providing for, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of specified conditions, the acquisition of
the Company by Parent at a price of $140.00 per share in cash
pursuant to a merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with and into
the Company.

As previously disclosed, two purported stockholders of Sigma-
Aldrich each filed a putative class action complaint in the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri on behalf of a
purported class of stockholders naming Sigma-Aldrich, each
director of Sigma-Aldrich, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants.
Those lawsuits have been consolidated (the "St. Louis
Litigation"). In addition, as previously disclosed a purported
stockholder of Sigma-Aldrich filed a putative class action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Delaware Litigation" and, together with the St. Louis Litigation,
the "Litigation").

On November 25, 2014, Sigma-Aldrich, Parent and Merger Sub entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the
Litigation providing for the settlement of the St. Louis
Litigation and the dismissal of the St. Louis Litigation and the
Delaware Litigation upon entry of a final order by the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis approving the settlement. In the
Memorandum of Understanding, Sigma-Aldrich agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement of
Sigma-Aldrich dated November 3, 2014 relating to the Merger and
the Merger Agreement (the "Proxy Statement").

Sigma-Aldrich believes that no additional disclosure is required
to supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws. However,
to avoid the risk that the Litigation may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the consummation of the Merger, and to minimize
the expense of defending the Litigation, Sigma-Aldrich has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, to make
certain supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement. The
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement. The Memorandum of
Understanding contemplates that, subject to completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The settlement
contemplated by the parties will be subject to customary
conditions, including consummation of the merger, certification of
the class, and court approval following notice to Sigma-Aldrich's
stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the
settlement is finally approved by the presiding court, such
settlement will resolve and release all claims that were, or could
have been, brought in any of the actions challenging any aspect of
the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal made by
stockholders of Sigma-Aldrich in accordance with Section 262 of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware), pursuant to
terms that will be disclosed to stockholders of Sigma-Aldrich
prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. If the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis does not approve the settlement, such proposed
settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding,
may be terminated.


SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Judge Refuses to Certify False Ad Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Eat Drink Better reports that an Illinois judge refused to certify
a class action lawsuit alleging that Skinnygirl Margarita, a pre-
mixed alcohol beverage sold by Skinnygirl Cocktails, is guilty of
false advertising because the beverage is labeled as "all natural"
despite containing the non-natural preservative sodium benzoate.

According to Lexology.com, this most recent class action lawsuit
was denied because "the court identified several shortcomings with
the proposed class."  Those shortcomings appear to be
technicalities rather than proof that Skinnygirl Margaritas are
"all-natural" -- which they are not. Back in November 2013,
Skinnygirl cocktails made the news when Whole Foods Markets pulled
the beverages from it shelves upon discovering that they contained
sodium benzoate, an additive linked to aging and cancer.

In this case, the technicalities cited by the court include the
fact that "the plaintiff failed to offer a valid method to
identify the purchasers."  Another technicality cited was the
apparent conflict of interest caused by the personal relationship
between the plaintiff and lead counsel (the plaintiff's father, an
attorney, had in other cases served as co-counsel with the lead
attorney representing the plaintiff).

But, most alarming is that the court agreed that the evidence
showed "the materiality of the misleading marketing," yet the
judge denied to certify the case because "the plaintiff failed to
show that any other potential class members were actually harmed
because they had purchased the product."  In other words, the
court believed Skinnygirl consumers aren't harmed by not knowing
-- and don't even care -- if there are small amounts of sodium
benzoate in Skinnygirl Margartitas.


SMARTHEAT INC: Plans to File Summary Judgment in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smartheat Inc. indicated to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York that it plans to file a summary
judgment motion in a securities suit filed against it, according
to the company's Nov. 25, 2014, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et al., which purported to allege federal
securities law claims against the Company and certain of its
former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Thereafter,
two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the proceeding.  A lead plaintiff was appointed and
an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen
Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, the
company's President, and Michael Wilhelm, the company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though
they were not officers of the Company during the alleged class
period. A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013,
under the caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James
Jun Wang, SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and
Bialowons as defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two
counts against the Company, both asserting violations of the
federal securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or
management sales of securities and alleged false disclosures
relating to those sales. On May 8, 2013, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint which was denied.
On March 17, 2014 the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion
for class certification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the
lead plaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification.
On September 19, 2014, the company filed an opposition to the lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintiff
filed a response on October 20, 2014.  The company have also
indicated to the Court that the company plan to file a summary
judgment motion and have requested a conference (as required by
the Court) to discuss this motion.  The Court has indicated that
it will schedule a conference regarding the summary judgment
motion after the Court has decided the class certification motion.
The pleadings and court orders are publicly available.


SONY COMPUTER: Fails to Dismiss "Ladore" Suit Over Killzone Game
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit accusing Sony Computer Entertainment of
embellishing how good the graphics are in its "Killzone: Shadow
Fall" videogame will proceed, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

In the class action filed this past August, lead plaintiff Douglas
Ladore claims that Sony's "Killzone: Shadow Fall" videogame --
pitched by the company as a "crowning achievement in the videogame
industry" -- was advertised to have multiplayer mode graphics in
full 1080p high-definition resolution, but didn't meet that bar.

"Gamers quickly noticed and complained that Killzone's multiplayer
graphics were blurry to the point of distraction," Ladore's
complaint alleges.

Sony moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds.  The
company argued that its representations about the graphics weren't
false, that Ladore didn't adequately plead reliance on any alleged
misrepresentation, that the game doesn't fall under the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and that the "economic loss rule" bars
Ladore's tort claim for negligent misrepresentation.

But on December 16, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen denied all but
one of Sony's arguments, holding the company's motion was
"premised on an unduly narrow reading of plaintiff's complaint."

"The substantial majority of the arguments Sony raises in its
motion to dismiss can be rejected for two simple reasons -- either
Sony's arguments ignore important factual allegations that are
well pleaded in Ladore's complaint, or Sony's arguments require
this court to construe the complaint in the light most favorable
to Sony, rather than Ladore, who is entitled to the benefit of all
reasonable inferences at this stage of the proceedings," Chen
wrote.

On Ladore's negligent misrepresentation cause of action, however,
Chen found the claim inadequately pleaded under the economic loss
rule since Ladore hadn't asserted any non-economic losses stemming
from his purchase of the game.

Ladore has 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The case is Douglas Ladore, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America,
LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-03530-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

                         Schedules Reset

In November, Judge Chen allowed the parties to reset schedules in
the case.  On November 3, 2014, the parties conferred and
Plaintiff indicated that, due to the availability of counsel, he
requires additional time to prepare and file his responses to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice. The
parties also agreed that scheduling issues pertaining to the
upcoming Thanksgiving holiday necessitate further adjustments to
the briefing and hearing schedule on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
and Request for Judicial Notice.

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and
Request for Judicial Notice were due November 12, 2014 and
Defendant's reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss and Request
for Judicial Notice were due on November 19, 2014 with a hearing
scheduled on December 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm before Judge Edward M.
Chen in Courtroom 5.

The parties agreed to modify hearing date and briefing schedule
follows: 1) Request that the hearing on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss be moved to December 18, 2014; 2) Plaintiff's time in
which to file his Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and
Request for Judicial Notice be extended to November 26, 2014 and;
3) Defendant's time in which to file its reply be extended to
December 10, 2014.

In a November 10, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/BOmI6Xfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Chen set the hearing on the case on December 18,
and directed the parties to file opposition on November 26; file a
reply on December 8.  The case management conference was reset
from Nov. 20 to December 18.  The Joint CMC Statement due on
December 11, 2014.

Samuel Lasser -- sam@samlasserlaw.com -- at LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL
LASSER -- Jay Edelson -- edelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S.
Balabanian --rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Benjamin S. Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Amir Missaghi -- amissagi@edelson.com -
at EDELSON PC, Attorneys for Plaintiff Douglas Ladore and the
Putative Class.

Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- Michele D. Floyd --
mfloyd@srclaw.com -- at SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC.


SONY CORP: Ex-Workers Express Frustration Over Data Leak Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hollie McKay, writing for Fox411, reports that the Sony hacking
nightmare is getting darker by the day -- with the fallout
expected to continue for some time.  According to several former
employees who had their private details disclosed online, the
company's response has been unacceptable, and a class-action
lawsuit is brewing.

"Employees are currently investigating class action options as it
seems there was reason to believe there was gross negligence on
behalf of the company.  We're all worried about our identities,
privacy and our families and Sony so far hasn't done much to
address the situation," one former Sony worker, whose passport,
visa, social security number and contracts, have all been leaked,
told FOX411.  "Sony has not contacted ex-employees directly and we
have been frustrated with the slow response from them.  We've also
largely been left in the dark about the matter."

Another long-term employee, who left Sony earlier this year,
concurred that class action suits are coming and that many persons
have already been contacted by a major law firm.  Former employees
have also started a private Facebook group -- that now counts more
than 2,000 members -- which enables them to exchange updates and
advice.  The former employee also claims that the company has
failed to be proactive and "decided to make it the responsibility
of former employees to reach them," and claims phone calls and
emails to Sony have still not been returned.

"Others have received automated replies stating that they were
working on confirming the former employees' identity, but I'm not
sure what this means," noted the ex-employee.  "The studio has
told current employees that they'll cover one year of ID
protection, presumably they will include former employees too.
Unless the Internet disappears over the next 12 months, it amounts
to nothing.  This is something we'll all be dealing with now for
the rest of our lives."

According to California attorney Leo Terrell of CleartheCourt.com,
the basis of a potential suit will depend on the nature of the
claims and if Sony acts negligently regarding the hacking.

"We don't have knowledge right now as to whether or not Sony could
have avoided this problem, or their (policies) were sloppy which
allowed the hacking to occur," Mr. Terrell said.  "Sony is under
obligation now to protect the privacy rights of their employees as
well as stars.  The hackers have promised more damage."

While many former workers are expressing their frustrations, it
seems Sony is taking steps to keep current employees in the loop.
FOX411 obtained a memo sent to current employees from Michael
Lynton, Chairman and CEO, Sony Pictures Entertainment on Dec. 8
addressing the "highly sophisticated attack" and assuring all that
the FBI has dedicated its senior staff to this investigation.

Jason Glassberg, co-founder of Casaba Security and an ethical
hacker routinely hired to break into the networks of Fortune 500
companies and major banks, as well as work with Asian businesses
and Hollywood studios, said that Sony may have lost upwards of 100
terabytes of data -- but to-date only 40 gigabytes has been
unveiled.

"The hits keep coming and coming and show no sign of slowing, so
there will definitely be more bad news ahead.  This is an attack
of historic proportions," Mr. Glassberg said.  "Whoever did this
wanted Sony to suffer, and suffer big time.  They were not out to
steal for profit.  They were out to destroy."

The entertainment and electronics conglomerate endured another
blow on Dec. 8, with its PlayStation store suddenly becoming
inaccessible to a number of users.  The Tokyo-based computer
entertainment division didn't refer to the incident as a hack, but
said the matter was being investigated.

It has been broadly speculated that North Korea is behind the mass
hack because Sony is preparing to release the James Franco/Seth
Rogan film "The Interview" which satirizes the nation's leader
Kim Jong-un.  However, in a statement over the weekend North
Korean officials denied responsibility for the attack, indicating
that it may have been orchestrated by an individual or group in
support of the country.

Conservative estimates suggest that Sony has lost around $170
million in revenue from the security breach, with tens of millions
being lost with each passing day, particularly with the
dissemination of stolen versions of key holiday films and the high
possibility that stars will back away from the studio for future
projects over security concerns.

"Lawyers, accountants and business managers will demand from Sony
additional safeguards to protect their clients' privacy rights,"
Terrell noted.

Sony did not respond to a request for comment.

But experts caution that it is not just other movie studios now
need to be on high alert in the wake of the hack, but all U.S.
businesses.

"The cyber-attack is an incredibly important weapon going
forward," Mr. Glassberg added.  "Most of the time, cyber-attacks
are definitely economic warfare."


ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Court Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandie Piper and Christina Coleman, writing for KSDK-TV report
that seven class action lawsuits have been filed against St. Louis
County cities by a team of attorneys from three law offices,
because they say the cities have charged illegal fees in municipal
court.

The lawsuits were filed against Ferguson, Beverly Hills, Fenton,
Jennings, Pine Lawn, Wellston, and Velda City and claim warrant
fees were not authorized by state law.  The lawsuits were filed on
Dec. 8 electronically, so some city officials may not even know
that they're facing a lawsuit just yet.

Attorneys from Saint Louis University Legal Clinics, Arch City
Defenders, and Campbell Law are representing the plaintiffs in the
lawsuits.  They want defendants who had to pay the fees to avoid
going to jail to be reimbursed.

Ferguson City Council recently approved three laws that would
ensure court fine revenues stay at or below 15 percent of the
city's overall revenue, repeal a "failure to appear" offense as
well as eliminate administrative and other fees for towing and
failure to appear.

The municipalities are expected to be served with the formal
summons within the next few days.  Lawsuits against additional
cities may be filed.


SYNGENTA CORP: Nebraska Farmers Join GMO Corn Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Hubbard, writing for World-Herald News Service, reports
that about 20 Nebraska farmers have recently joined the legal fray
against seed company Syngenta, filing lawsuits over genetically
modified corn.

The lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha, say the
Minnesota-based ag company sold seeds with gene-modified traits
that are unacceptable to buyers in China, which the suits say did
not approve the crops for import.  The suits say even Nebraska
farmers who didn't use the Syngenta Viptera and Duracade seeds
have suffered losses because the Syngenta corn has contaminated
"farmland, farming equipment, storage facilities, harvesting
equipment, and transportation facilities," resulting in wholesale
rejection of U.S. shipments by China.

U.S. corn exports to worldwide buyers almost tripled in the 12
months ended Sept. 30, according to U.S. Agriculture Department
statistics.  But exports to China fell 85 percent in the early
part of 2014, according to the National Grain and Feed
Association.  Nebraska is the nation's third-largest corn
producer, after Iowa and Illinois.

"It is difficult to isolate once it gets in the system," said John
Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union.  "It is also
reckless and irresponsible to release genetically modified seed
prior to approval" of major trading partners.

Syngenta Seeds, a unit of Switzerland-based agribusiness giant
Syngenta AG, said in a statement the suits are without merit and
that growers should have the right to use new seeds that increase
productivity and profitability.  The Viptera seed, Syngenta said,
has been approved for cultivation in the United States since 2010.
"Syngenta also obtained import approval from major corn importing
countries," the company said.

The Syngenta seeds have a genetically modified protein that
allegedly makes the corn plant more resistant to insects and other
pests, the suits say.

The recent Nebraska suits are not the only ones citing Syngenta.
Earlier, suits seeking class-action status were filed in Nebraska,
Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas.

Genetically modified crop seeds are common in Nebraska, with 98
percent of farmers using them, according to the Nebraska
Department of Agriculture.


TAKATA CORP: Judge Stays Florida Airbag Class Action Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that consumers can't immediately pursue a
lawsuit against Takata Corp. and multiple carmakers claiming loss
of vehicle value tied to airbag recalls while awaiting a decision
that would combine more than 50 cases before one judge.

U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King on Dec. 8 stayed
proceedings in a proposed class action filed in Miami federal
court and denied a plaintiffs' request for immediate disclosure of
evidence.  A panel of federal judges will decide after a Jan. 29
hearing whether the Florida case will be combined with the others
and, if so, which judge would oversee the lawsuits.

Waiting for the panel to combine the cases is more "efficient"
than handling motions in individual suits, King said at a hearing
in Miami on Dec. 8.

The lawsuits were spurred by a series of recalls, now up to more
than 10 million vehicles in the U.S. equipped with Takata airbags.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said
Takata's air-bag inflators may malfunction if exposed to
consistently high humidity by deploying with too much force,
shooting metal pieces into drivers and passengers.

Four deaths in the U.S. and one in Malaysia have been linked to
air-bag shrapnel.

Vehicle value

Takata is facing more than 55 proposed class actions in the U.S.
by customers seeking payment for alleged losses in vehicle value
connected to the recalls.  Honda Motor Co. is named in almost all
of them.  Other defendants named in multiple suits include Ford
Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Chrysler, BMW and General Motors
Co.

Plaintiffs' lawyers and the defendants are seeking to have all the
suits combined in one federal court.  The plaintiffs have
suggested federal courts in cities including Miami, Detroit, New
Orleans, Houston and Los Angeles as possible sites for the
multidistrict litigation.

Honda and the other automakers said in a Nov. 26 filing that
Pittsburgh would be the "most logical venue" because two principle
Takata subsidiaries and all the U.S. defendants have headquarters
or operations nearby. Coordination of the cases before one judge
is "plainly warranted," lawyers for the carmakers said.

At least nine cases have been filed this year in U.S. courts
claiming deaths or personal injuries caused by exploding Takata
airbags.  Two of these claims involved deaths, one over a
California man who died in 2013, the other of a Florida woman who
died in October.

Some of these death and injury suits may be combined for evidence-
gathering before the federal court selected to oversee economic
loss claims, attorney Peter Prieto said in an interview before the
Dec. 8 hearing.


TESCO PLC: Faces "Davidson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Davidson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tesco Plc, Philip Clarke, and Laurie
McIlwee, Case No. 1:14-cv-09927 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Tesco Plc is a multinational grocery and general merchandise
retailer headquartered in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, England, United
Kingdom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4657
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4693
      E-mail: nespole@whafh.com


TESCO PLC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Dec. 10 disclosed
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
the Chester County Employees Retirement Fund against Tesco PLC, as
well as certain of the Company's officers and directors
("Defendants").  The action asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") on behalf of investors in
Tesco American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period of
April 17, 2013 through October 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  A copy of the Complaint filed in the action, captioned
Chester County Employees Retirement Fund v. Tesco PLC, No. 1:14-
cv-9757 (S.D.N.Y.), is available on BLB&G's website at
www.blbglaw.com

The Complaint expands the class period that was asserted in a
related action against Tesco, captioned Irving Firemen's Relief
and Retirement Fund v. Tesco PLC, No. 14-cv-8495-RMB (S.D.N.Y.)
("Irving"), which is the first-filed securities class action in
this matter and is presently pending before the Honorable Richard
M. Berman. Pursuant to the notice published on October 23, 2014 in
connection with the filing of the Irving action, as required by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors
wishing to serve as lead plaintiff are required to file a motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 22,
2014. In addition, Judge Berman entered an order on November 25,
2014 stating that motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff
must be filed by December 22, 2014.  The filing of the Complaint
by BLB&G does not alter that deadline.

The Complaint alleges that beginning on April 17, 2013 and
throughout the Class Period, Tesco and certain of its senior
executives violated provisions of the Exchange Act by
disseminating false and misleading press releases, financial
statements, and statements during investor conference calls.  As
alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Tesco and
certain of its senior executives misrepresented Tesco's financial
results and operations by, among other things, improperly
recognizing commercial income and delaying the accrual of costs
under the Company's arrangements with its U.K. suppliers.

On September 22, 2014, Tesco disclosed that the Company had
identified a "serious" accounting issue and had overstated profits
for the first half of the year by at least œ250 million ($400
million) by improperly and prematurely recognizing revenue and
delaying accrual of costs.  Tesco also disclosed that it had
suspended a number of senior executives and announced that it had
hired an external auditor to investigate the accounting
manipulations.  On October 23, 2014, Tesco disclosed that the size
of the misstatement was actually at least œ263 million ($420
million), that similar improper accounting practices had impacted
its reported financial results in prior periods, and that the
Company's chairman was resigning.  In the wake of these
disclosures, Tesco securities have plunged in value, with the
Company's ADRs losing over half of their value in the past year.

The action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
against the Defendants, and asserts claims under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against certain of the Company's officers and
directors.

The deadline for filing a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff
is December 22, 2014.  Any member of the proposed Class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the
proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Court Denied Plaintiffs' Request to Enjoin Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware issued a memorandum
opinion in the consolidated class action In re TIBCO Software Inc.
Stockholders Litigation on November 25, 2014, according to the
company's Nov. 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Among other things, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiff's
request to enjoin the pending merger between TIBCO Software Inc.
and an affiliate of Vista Equity Partners.


TOWER RESEARCH: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation Contracts Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sunghun Jung, Sung-Hee Lee, and
Kyungsub Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tower Research Capital LLC and Mark Gorton, Case No.
1:14-cv-09912 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants used fictitious trades and other spoofing techniques to
manipulate the price of KOSPI 200 Futures contracts traded on the
CME Globix for their own profit.

Tower Research Capital LLC is a financial services firm
headquartered at 377 Broadway, New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Stephen Sommers, Esq.
      John Douglas Richards, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
      Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
              drichards@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Esq.
      Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL P.L.L.C.
      88 Pine Street, 14th, Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
      E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
              rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com


UGI CORP: Antitrust Suits by Customers Transferred to Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred purported class action cases filed against UGI
Corporation by certain direct and indirect customers to the
Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, according to
the company's Nov. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept.
30, 2014.

On or about November 4, 2011, the General Partner received notice
that the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") had initiated an
antitrust and consumer protection investigation into certain
practices of the Partnership relating to the filling of portable
propane cylinders. On February 2, 2012, the Partnership received a
Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC that requested documents
and information concerning, among other things, (i) the
Partnership's decision, in 2008, to reduce the volume of propane
in cylinders it sells to consumers from 17 pounds to 15 pounds,
and (ii) cross-filling, related service arrangements and
communications regarding the foregoing with competitors. The
Partnership responded to that subpoena and cooperated with
subsequent requests for information. On March 27, 2014, the FTC
issued an administrative complaint against the Partnership and UGI
alleging that the General Partner and one of its competitors
colluded in 2008 to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores,
Inc., to accept the cylinder fill reduction from 17 pounds to 15
pounds.  The complaint does not seek monetary remedies.  The
Partnership and UGI filed their answer to the complaint on April
18, 2014.  On August 25, 2014, the parties entered into an
Agreement Containing Consent Orders, and on August 27, 2014, the
FTC issued an Order Withdrawing Matter from Adjudication for the
Purpose of Considering a Proposed Consent Agreement.

Following the issuance of the FTC's administrative complaint, more
than 35 class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions
against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by
certain of their direct and indirect customers.  The class action
lawsuits allege that the Partnership and its competitor colluded
in 2008 to reduce the fill level and combined to persuade its
common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill
reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and
end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state
antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
classes.  On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the Western District of
Missouri.


UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Immigration Class Action v. DHS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Self, writing for Daily Press, reports that a detainee
inside the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Facility in
Adelanto is one of the lead names in a class-action lawsuit filed
against the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of thousands
seeking asylum.

The case was recently certified by a federal court judge after the
government motioned to dismiss the suit involving plaintiffs who
are held for months while awaiting screening interviews that allow
them to proceed on their claims for protection in U.S. immigration
courts.

Marco Antonio Alfaro Garcia, an El Salvadorian national, waited
for at least two months for a "reasonable fear" screening or
interview to determine the level of persecution or torture he
might encounter by returning to his home country.

"These are individuals who seek protection in the United States
but are forced to languish in detention waiting to move forward on
their cases, simply because the Department (of Homeland Security)
has ignored its own regulation mandating the prompt processing of
these claims," Michael Kaufman, a staff attorney with the ACLU
Foundation of Southern California, said in a written statement.
"At a time of some progress in the immigration system, this ruling
highlights a troubling trend that has been left unaddressed by the
President's executive action."

The lawsuit was filed in April in the federal District Court of
Northern California by ACLU Foundation of Southern California,
ACLU of Northern California and Heartland Alliance's National
Immigrant Justice Center on behalf of the thousands of individuals
each year who receive summary removal orders but express a fear of
return to their home countries.

During Alfaro Garcia's prolonged detention, his family has
struggled financially, according to an ACLU news release. Prior to
his detention, he worked as a welder and was the sole breadwinner
for his wife and children.

Though a regulation requires the Department of Homeland Security
to conduct the screening interviews within 10 days, the government
routinely delays conducting interviews for months and, in some
cases, over a year -- during which time these individuals remain
detained.

In the Nov. 21 ruling, the court found that "the agency appears to
have ignored the regulatory deadline altogether."

In rejecting the government's motion to dismiss, the court held
that "the (regulation) does require the agency to complete
reasonable fear determinations within 10 days as a general
matter," and that "the agency cannot unilaterally disregard the
requirements" of the regulation.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and certified a class of all noncitizens who are
subject to the "reasonable fear" process nationwide -- a total of
several thousand people each year.

"We are eager to push forward with the case," said Julia Harumi
Mass, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California,
"and obtain relief for thousands of asylum seekers who suffer
prolonged detention and stalled protection from persecution
because of interview delays throughout the country."


US CENTURY: Settles Derivative Class Action for $4.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that U.S. Century Bank
signed a $4.5 million settlement agreement on Dec. 9 resolving a
shareholder derivative class action against the Miami-area bank
and four related lawsuits, a day after a state appeals court
refused to stay the trial judge's order for it to do so, according
to court records.

The signing of the agreement ends several weeks of resistance from
the bank and resolves the cases Silva et al. v. U.S. Century Bank
and Tome et al. v. U.S. Century Bank, which sought to bring direct
claims for shareholders against the bank, and three cases
involving the bank's insurers.  Florida Circuit Judge John W.
Thornton dismissed the Tome case in October, and the parties
requested that an appeal be remanded to him for dismissal pursuant
to the settlement.

U.S. Century Bank became the largest undercapitalized bank in the
country, and minority shareholders' investments lost 98 percent of
their value, according to the class action complaint, filed as a
derivative suit in November 2012 and a class action in January
2013.

Judge Thornton denied the bank's objection to the settlement in an
Oct. 30 ruling, but the bank refused to sign the settlement
agreement based on opposition from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp, with which it previously entered into a consent decree.

The bank reiterated its resistance to signing the settlement at a
Nov. 10 final fairness hearing. Bank counsel Andres Rivero of
Rivero Mestre LLP threw himself at the mercy of the court, saying
that federal regulators continued to threaten sanctions.

"I am worried about your clients if they don't sign it," Judge
Thornton told Rivero, saying he would issue a show cause order if
they did not and noting that in six years on the civil court
bench, he has never thrown anyone in jail, but that the defendants
faced that risk.

An order to show cause was filed Nov. 21, according to court
records.

At the fairness hearing, plaintiffs' counsel Gonzalo Dorta --
grd@dortalaw.com -- of Dorta Law also urged the court not to allow
the continued objection and further litigation to result in any
delays to the funding of his clients' recovery.

In an emergency motion for stay filed in the Third District Court
of Appeal as part of its appeal of Judge Thornton's order, U.S.
Century Bank said the FDIC had informed the bank in an August
letter that the bank was not authorized to execute the proposed
settlement agreement and that it would consider it a violation of
the consent order if it did so without proper permission.

The regulatory body threatened possible civil money penalties
against the bank and members of its board of directors, the bank
said.

"The bank faces the impossible situation of having to choose
between withstanding the FDIC's imposition of civil monetary
penalties (and the risk of becoming insolvent or worse, being
shutdown for violating of the consent order), or this court's
imposition of criminal contempt," the bank said in its motion.

On the morning of the final fairness hearing, the Florida Office
of Financial Regulation, also party to the consent order, informed
the bank that exercising a "stock option" in the settlement would
violate state law limiting its issuance of shares.

On Dec. 8, however, the Third District denied the bank's motion,
and vacated its temporary stay entered Nov. 26, according to court
records.

The $4.5 million recovery, which represents 40 percent of
plaintiffs' anticipated recovery from a trial, will come from
insurance coverage, counsel said during the fairness hearing.  In
addition to that, shareholders secured some unusual provisions
allowing them to retain their interest in the company and ability
to police it, and also to make an additional 10 percent investment
that will allow them to share in the profits in the likelihood the
bank is sold.

The plaintiffs claimed that insiders, including the bank's
directors, received loans at special rates and that the bank
rented directors' properties for bank branches at exaggerated
lease rates.  At the peak of the insider lending scheme, U.S.
Century Bank had about $111.9 million in outstanding loans to its
own officers and directors, exceeding 94 percent of the bank's
equity capital, according to the complaint.

In 2009, the bank received $50.2 million through the federal
Troubled Asset Relief Program -- the largest grant in Florida --
but squandered that money on more insider loans to finance
construction projects, the plaintiffs said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gonzalo R. Dorta of Dorta Law
and by Elisabeth M. Culmo of Silva & Silva PA.

U.S. Century Bank is represented by Andres Rivero and G. Raemy
Charest -- rcharest@riveromestre.com -- of Rivero Mestre LLP.

The individual defendants are represented by Marty Steinberg --
msteinberg@bilzin.com -- Mitchell Widom and Justin Brenner --
jbrenner@bilzin.com -- of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod
LLP.

The cases are Silva et al. v. U.S. Century Bank et al., case
number 2012-44522-CA-40, and Tome et al. v. U.S. Century Bank et
al., case number 2013-987-CA-40, both in the Circuit Court for the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.


US FOODSERVICE: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 9, 2014, U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson granted
final approval of a $297 million settlement between plaintiffs in
a multidistrict class action and defendant U.S. Foodservice, Inc.
and its former Dutch parent company, Koninklijke Ahold, N.V.

"We are pleased with the Court's grant of final approval and entry
of judgment.  We appreciate the court's recognition of the many
years of hard work that have gone into achieving this noteworthy
result for the class."

Richard L. Wyatt Jr., partner and co-leader of Hunton & Williams'
litigation department, who led the firm's legal team on behalf of
the plaintiff class -- which includes restaurants, hospitals,
universities and other food service providers across the United
States -- had several comments:

"We are pleased with the Court's grant of final approval and entry
of judgment.  We appreciate the court's recognition of the many
years of hard work that have gone into achieving this noteworthy
result for the class."

"The settlement has been very well received in the food service
industry.  Many in the industry have been vocal with their
support, and the Court did not receive a single objection to the
settlement."

"The settlement funds are very substantial, and we look forward to
distributing them to the class, including the many hospitals and
restaurant operators across the country who are among some of the
largest customers of U.S. Foodservice."

This agreement is believed to be one of the largest civil RICO
class action settlements in recent history and was reached on
behalf of a class of customers, primarily hospitals, restaurant
operators, universities and other food service providers, who
purchased products from U.S. Foodservice under cost-plus
arrangements between 1998 and 2005.  The class claimed that it was
defrauded by U.S. Foodservice when it created six companies that
it controlled to inflate the "cost component" of the products that
were subject to the arrangement.

The parties entered into settlement talks when the United States
Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court opinion
affirming certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs for
RICO and breach of contract violations against U.S. Foodservice.
The Court on Dec. 9 found the settlement to be a "fair, adequate
and reasonable" resolution of the plaintiffs' claims.

Class members can file claims to recover their damages at
www.usfoodservicepricinglitigation.com until December 19, 2014.

The Hunton team representing the plaintiffs-class of customers was
led by Richard L. Wyatt Jr. and included Torsten M. Kracht, Ryan
P. Phair, Carter T. Coker, Rachel E. Mossman and Christopher J.
Dufek.

Plaintiffs were also represented by R. Laurence Macon --
lmacon@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP,
James E. Hartley, Jr. of Drubner Hartley & Hellman, LLC, Joseph R,
Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- of Whatley Kallas,
LLP, Celeste T. Jones -- cjones@mcnair.net -- of The McNair Law
Firm, P.A., Mr. Gray of Gray and White, LLP and Robert Foote --
rmf@fmcolaw.com -- of Foote, Mielkie, Chavez and O'Neil, LLC. U.S.
Koninklijke Ahold, N.V (also known as Royal Ahold) and U.S.
Foodservice were represented by White & Case LLP and Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

                   About Hunton & Williams LLP

Since its establishment more than a century ago, Hunton & Williams
-- http://www.hunton.com-- has grown to 800 lawyers serving
clients from 19 offices worldwide.  With an industry focus on
energy, financial services, consumer products and retail, and real
estate, the firm's global experience extends to legal disciplines
including corporate transactions and securities law, intellectual
property, international and government relations, regulatory law,
privacy and cybersecurity, and commercial litigation.


UVEX SPORTS: Recalls Bicycle Helmets Due to Head Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Uvex Sports GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, announced a voluntary recall
of 46,800 UVEX Bicycle Helmets.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The anchor for the helmet's chinstrap can fail, causing the
helmets to slide off the head, posing a head injury hazard.  The
bicycle helmets also do not comply with the impact requirements of
the CPSC safety standards for bicycle helmets.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves seven models of UVEX helmets.  The helmets
come in a variety of colors with different colored chin straps.
The helmets have a model number inside the helmet under the
fitting pad on the top right side.  The affected helmet model
numbers are XB017, XB022, XB025, XB027, XB032, XB036 and XB038.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/sOqXFZ

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at
Sporting goods and bicycle specialty stores nationwide from
September 2009 through June 2014 for about $100 to $260.

Consumers should stop using the helmets and contact UVEX for a
free compliant helmet or a refund of the purchase price.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Basile, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Agms, Inc., Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P., PS Management GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC, William
A. Ackman, and Does 1-10,Case No. 2:14-cv-09629 (C.D. Cal.,
December 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
manufactures and markets pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
products, and medical devices in the areas of eye health,
dermatology, and neurology therapeutic classes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
              achang@bottinilaw.com
              ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com


VAM USA: "Durham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Durham and Eric Young, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Vam USA, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00488
(S.D. Tex., December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Vam USA, LLC manufactures and markets connection solutions for the
oil and gas industry worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile:  (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


VELOCITY EXPRESS: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Mejia, on his own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Velocity Express, LLC, Transforce, Inc., Vincent A.
Wasik, Arlene Jordan, and "John Does #1-100, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09900 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Velocity Express, LLC provides customized, same day regional
delivery services across the United States and Western Canada.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli Zev Freedberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG P.C.
      11 Broadway, Suite 615
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (347) 651-0044
      Facsimile: (212) 214-0799
      E-mail: efreedberg@ezf-law.com


VESTAS WIND: Portland Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 21, 2011, Vestas disclosed that a lawsuit had been filed
as a class action in a US court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S,
its US subsidiary and certain officers and directors, ref. company
announcement No. 8/2011 of March 21, 2011.  In company
announcement No. 25/2014 of June 26, 2014, Vestas disclosed that a
conditional settlement of this dispute had been reached.  As part
of this settlement, the claims against the individual officers and
directors were also dropped.

The settlement consists of a cash payment of USD5 million to the
plaintiffs, and this amount will be paid in its entirety by
Vestas' insurer.

The United States District Court, Portland Division, has now
approved the proposed settlement.  This settlement will become
final 30 days after the court approval unless the approval is
appealed.

One of the allegations raised by the plaintiffs was that Vestas'
share price had been inflated during the class period due to
misstatements and omissions in relation to the company's
accounting for supply-and-installation contracts under IFRIC 15.
Vestas expressly denies all allegations in the lawsuit and
maintains that its disclosures to the public were appropriate at
all times.  Vestas therefore does not concede any wrongdoing or
liability in relation to the claims raised against it.
Nevertheless, it has been deemed desirable for Vestas to resolve
the claims in order to end the substantial expenses, burdens and
uncertainties associated with continued litigation in the USA.

The settlement relates only to purchases of American Depositary
Receipts and ordinary shares bought in US domestic transactions
during the US class period commencing February 11, 2009 and ending
February 9, 2012.  The settlement does not affect other
transactions or the lawsuit that was filed in the City Court of
Aarhus by 87 shareholders in August 2013, ref. company
announcement No. 35/2013 of 16 August 2013.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03584
(S.D. Tex., December 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of forty 40
hours in a single workweek.

Weatherford International, LLC is one of the largest oilfield
services companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


WEGMANS: Recalls Moody Face Stress Balls Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gift Craft, of Williamsville, NY, announced a voluntary recall of
7,000 Gift Gallery Moody Face Stress Balls.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

These rubber stress balls can break into pieces when squeezed,
posing a choking hazard to young children.

The Gift Gallery Moody Face Stress Balls are solid rubber balls
that you can squeeze in your hand.  These stress balls were sold
in five colors: blue, green, orange, red and yellow and have black
eyes and mouth as a smiley face printed on the front with pink,
orange or yellow yarn hair on top.  The balls measure about 2.5
inches in diameter.  The stress balls were packaged in a clear bag
with a white square label that has the "Gift Gallery" logo, model
number 205617 and UPC code 0-67103-30053-6.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/M3Qeub

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Wegmans in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania and Virginia during September 2014 for about $1.

Consumers should immediately stop using these stress balls and
return them to any Wegmans service desk for a full refund.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Pollution Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Arkansas says
he won't certify a complaint against Whirlpool Corp. as a class-
action lawsuit because he is not sure whether residents of a
polluted Arkansas neighborhood or the company is the driving force
behind it.

The Southwest Times Record reported that U.S. District Judge P.K.
Holmes III rejected a joint motion seeking class-action status and
approval of a proposed settlement.

"It seems the parties have only engaged in settlement
negotiations" rather than conducting discovery or otherwise
pressing their sides of the lawsuit, Judge Holmes wrote.

The proposed settlement would see Whirlpool give an "incentive
payment" to people pressing the lawsuit for the entire group.
Judge Holmes said such language is present in "adversarial
proceedings," but said that's not the case in the current lawsuit.

"The incentive clause raises questions about vigorous
prosecution," Holmes wrote.

A degreasing solvent, trichloroethylene, leaked into groundwater
near the plant between the late 1960s and early 1980s, reducing
property values.  Benton Harbor, Mich.-based Whirlpool closed the
plant in 2012.

Whirlpool requested a ban on new water wells near the plant in
2013, renewing concerns that contamination had spread, and a
lawsuit was filed in state court in May 2013.  It was moved to
federal court a month later, and in July this year plaintiffs and
the company asked Holmes to OK a settlement.

Judge Holmes singled out a lawyer whose "goal from the beginning
was to compromise for less than the damages he believes are
available, even though that attorney also assumed that liability
for the TCE plume would not be hotly contested (by Whirlpool)."

The judge questioned whether a class action was necessary at all
and didn't address the proposed settlement, which included:

   -- Payments to property owners nearest the plant equal to their
      decrease in property values;
   -- $5,000 payments to property owners farther away;
   -- A ban on new wells in the area.


WINDOWCRAFT INC: Recalls Custom Roller Shades Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Windowcraft Inc. dba. WindowTex, of Garden City Park, NY,
announced a voluntary recall of about 6,800 Roller Window Shades.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A steel pin inserted into the idler on the shades can become
dislodged and cause the shade to fall from the mounting bracket,
posing a risk of injury from impact to the consumer.

WindowTex has received six reports of steel pins becoming
dislodged from the window shade idler, causing some of the shades
to fall.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves WindowTex custom-made fabric roller window
shades that are raised and lowered by a side-mounted chain.  The
recalled shades have an idler with steel pin inserted into one end
of the roller tube.  The steel pin is used to connect the window
shade to the metal mounting bracket.  Roller shades included in
this recall have idlers with model number D15T, used with a 1 1/2
inch roller tube, and model number D20T, used with a 2 inch roller
tube.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/9AU35f

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at
WindowTex authorized dealers nationwide from April 2014 through
June 2014 for between $100 and $500.

Consumers with the recalled window shades should immediately
contact the place of purchase for instructions on how to schedule
a service call for free replacement idlers. Consumers can also
contact WindowTex for help identifying their authorized dealer.
Authorized dealers are contacting all known purchasers.


WINNCOMPANIES INC: Judge Remands "Perez" Suit to Kern County
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Paul Perez alleged that he was employed by defendants
WinnCompanies, Inc., and Winn Management Group in a salaried on-
site-position but the latter misclassified him as exempt and paid
him on a salary basis. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class
defined as: "All current and former California-based (i.e.,
currently 'residing' in California with the intent to remain in
California indefinitely) salaried on-site employees employed by
any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time
during the period from four years preceding the filing of this
Complaint to final judgment.

Plaintiff raises nine causes of action for wage and hour
violations against Defendants: (1) violation of California Labor
Code Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); (2) violation of
California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a) (unpaid meal
period premiums); (3) violation of California Labor Code Section
226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); (4) violation of California
Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (final wages not timely paid); (5)
violation of California Labor Code Section 204 (wages not timely
paid during employment); (6) violation of California Labor Code
Section 226(a) (non-compliant wage statements); (7) California
Labor Code Section 1174(d) (failure to keep requisite payroll
records; (8) violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and
2802 (unreimbursed business expenses) and (9) violation of
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.
(unfair competition/unfair business practices).

Defendants filed a Notice of Removal asserting the Court has
diversity jurisdiction over the action. Plaintiff filed a motion
to remand.

Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of
California granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the
Kern County Superior Court.  All remaining motions are terminated
as moot.

The case is entitled PAUL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. WINNCOMPANIES, INC., and WINN MANAGEMENT GROUP, Defendants,
Case No. 1:14-Cv-01497-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.).  A copy of Judge
Magistrate Judge Thurston's order dated November 7, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/uCRsAlfrom Leagle.com.

Paul Perez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arby
Aiwazian -- at The Aiwazian Law Firm -- Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- and -- Jill Jessica Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com --
at Lawyers for Justice, PC

Winncompanies, Inc., an unknown business entity and Winn
Management Group, an unknown business entity, Defendants,
represented by Hillary Mari Thornton -- hthornton@laborlawyers.com
-- and -- Mark Jarrod Jacobs -- mjacobs@laborlawyers.com -- at
Fisher & Phillips, LLP


YALE ENFORCEMENT: "Jone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yale Enforcement Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
02831 (E.D. La., December 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Yale Enforcement Services, Inc. is located at 3867 Plaza Tower
Drive, 1st Floor, Baton Rouge, LA, 70816.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
      1055 St. Charles Ave., Suite 300
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
      E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


YAMAHA: Recalls YZ250 Competition Off-Road Motorcycles
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Yamaha, announced a voluntary recall of about 875 off-road
motorcycles.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The engine can lock up during operation, causing a rider to lose
control of the vehicle and crash, resulting in injuries and death.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves model year 2015 Yamaha competition off-road
motorcycles with model numbers YZ250FFL and YZ250FFW.  The
recalled motorcycles are blue and white, and white and red.  The
model number is on left and right side of the fuel tank cowling.
The vehicle identification number (VIN) is stamped on the frame
near the steering stem.  The letter F in the 10th position of the
VIN number indicates that the unit was made in the 2015 model
year.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/OKxNwr

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold at
Yamaha motorcycle dealers nationwide from May 2014 through
November 2014 for about $7,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled motorcycles
and contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair.
Yamaha is contacting all registered owners directly.


ZUFFA LLC: Illegally Monopolizes MMA Promotions, "Le" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting
Championship and UFC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05484 (N.D. Cal., December
16, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's overarching
anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its monopoly power
in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional mixed
martial arts bouts, and monopsony power in the market for live
Elite Professional MMA Fighter services.

The Defendants are engage in the business of promoting
professional MMA events for live audiences as well as live
television, Internet and PPV broadcasts, and licenses, markets,
sells and distributes UFC Licensed Merchandise and/or Promotional
Materials including.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
      Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
      Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
              jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
              apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
              krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

         - and -

      Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
      Hiba Hafiz, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
      E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
              hhafiz@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
      Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
              mdellangelo@bm.net


* Food & Beverage False Ad Class Actions to Face Cert. Hurdles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Elder, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
surveying the class certification opinions from 2014 in cases
involving alleged false advertising of food and beverage products
demonstrates the continued difficulty in certifying these class
actions.  The U.S. Supreme Court's analysis of proposed classwide
damages models in Comcast v. Behrend has proven to be a
particularly high hurdle.

In response, some courts have moved increasingly toward the
certification of liability-only classes, deferring the damages
issues and effectively continuing to pressure defendants to settle
cases in which there are significant questions regarding whether
the class can satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
class actions -- specifically, Rule 23.

Next year is sure to bring more attention to the viability of
liability-only classes, both in food and beverage and other
potential class actions.

COMCAST'S COLLATERAL DAMAGE

In most cases, simpler damage theories such as a "full refund"
model or "price premium/benefit of the bargain" model failed to
support class certification.  Neither theory appropriately
calculated the restitutionary relief to which plaintiffs were
entitled under the governing false-advertising law.  "Full refund"
models, in which plaintiffs seek the product's entire purchase
price, typically failed because the models ignored that plaintiffs
received some benefit from their purchase.  "Price premium"
models, in which plaintiffs seek the difference in price between
the offending product and a comparable product without a deceptive
label, failed to account for the fact that a price premium may
exist for reasons other than the allegedly misleading label, such
as brand loyalty or type of packaging.

Satisfying Comcast typically required the use of a more complex
regression analysis, which refers to a statistical process for
estimating relationships between variables such as the
relationship between the label and the purchase price.  But,
reliance on more complicated damage models did not guarantee
certification.  In fact, in food and beverage cases, a regression
analysis typically supported certification only if the proposed
model compared data on identical products before the label
statement was introduced and after the alleged label
misrepresentation appeared.

Regression models generally fail to meet the strictures of Comcast
where the expert fails to adequately explain the methodology
behind the model or where it is clear that proposed model does not
measure the difference between the product as labeled and the
product the plaintiff actually received.

Moreover, preliminary certification of a damages class does not
guarantee continued certification, and the appropriateness of the
model can change as discovery progresses.  For example, the
Northern District of California initially certified a class
because a plaintiffs' expert alleged that he could compare data on
identical products before and after defendant placed the phrase
"All Natural Fruit" on the label.  However, discovery revealed
that the labels on the relevant products actually had not changed
over the class period, rendering this comparison impossible.

In response to the motion for decertification, a plaintiffs'
expert maintained that he could still tie plaintiffs' damages to
their theory of liability by comparing the defendant's products to
competitors' products, but the court disagreed and decertified the
damages class, leaving only a class for injunctive relief.

CIRCUMVENTING COMCAST

Several courts have dealt with Comcast issues by simply avoiding
the problem until later in the case.  In Lilly v. Jamba Juice, for
example, the court declined to certify a damages class, but
nevertheless certified a class for the sole purpose of determining
liability pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The court followed several
recent post-Comcast decisions from the U.S. courts of appeals for
the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth circuits (In re Deepwater, In
re Whirlpool, Butler v. Sears and Jiminez v. Allstate) certifying
liability-only classes and finding that class damages issues can
be addressed after class liability questions are resolved.
Relying on these circuit courts, the Lilly court opined that "some
of the difficulties in determining individual damages may fall
away after liability is determined, depending upon which claims
(if any) are successful, and which type of relief the class is
entitled to."

These 2014 food and beverage class actions suggest that defendants
should continue to create a robust factual record at the class
certification stage that provides a developed basis for
challenging plaintiffs' damages model.  Moreover, even after
preliminary certification, a defendant should continue to explore
the potential pitfalls of the plaintiffs' model given preliminary
certification does not guarantee continued certification.

However, defendants should also anticipate a potential course
correction.  It seems unlikely that the nation's most permissive
courts will continue to decertify, or not certify at all, putative
class actions solely on Comcast grounds.  Practitioners should
anticipate other courts in food and beverage cases deciding to
bifurcate liability and damages issues under Rule 23(c)(4) with
the hope that individual damages issues will fall away either
through settlement or additional factual development before
damages questions become ripe for adjudication.


                              *********

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  * * *