CAR_Public/150107.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 5


                             Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeals Court Expected to Rule on January 19
ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in "Bucio" Case
ANDREW LICHTENSTEIN: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Advertisements
ARRIS GROUP: Court Dismisses Claims in Pension Fund Case
ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Stockholder Class Action Over Merger

AVON PRODUCTS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Protect Stock Fund
BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY: Sued in Cal. Over Violation of ERISA
BEATS MUSIC: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Text Messages
BERKSHIRE LIFE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Proper Benefits
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Phase 1 Awards in Pradaxa Settlement Okayed

CALIFORNIA: Cal Fire Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHICAGO HEIGHTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Lango" Suit Claims
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
DAIFUKU AMERICA: "Chau" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DAP PRODUCTS: Faces "Carton" Suit Over Misleading Product Label

DIRECT BUSINESS: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Claims
ELECSYS CORPORATION: Faces "Stein" Class Action Over Merger
ELECSYS CORPORATION: Faces "Latoski" Class Action Over Merger
EPICOR SOFTWARE: April 24 Final Hearing in Shareholder Litigation
FLAGSTAR BANK: Doesn't Pay Workers Properly, "Westover" Suit Says

FORCE FACTOR: Falsely Marketed Testosterone Supplement, Suit Says
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed "Malon" Class Action
GARDEN FRESH: Cal. App. Court Grants Peremptory Writ of Mandate
GENERAL ELECTRIC: NJ Judge Grants Conditional Cert. in FLSA Suit
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Files Responsive Docs in "Hamilton" Case

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Falsely Marketed Products, Sweeney Suit Says
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Provides Update in Class Action Appeal
LOTT MANAGEMENT: "Dudley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Lead Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
MACY'S CORPORATE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says

MALLARD CLEANING: "Curbelo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Court Dismissed Class Claims in "Johnson" Suit
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against "Lucas and "Salerno" Suit
METHODIST HOSPITAL: Judge Grants Conditional Certification
MINNESOTA RECOVERY: Court Approves Class Action Settlement

MW MANUFACTURERS: "Gulbankian" Class Certified, Deal Approved
NATIONAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fairness Hearings Moved to May & July
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for Jan. 14
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 17 Ruling Date in Shareholder Suit

NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Oral Argument Held MaxxForce Litigation
NEW MIAMI: Ohio Court Flips "Barrow" Class Certification Order
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Juarez" Suit
PETRO RIVER: Says Oral Arguments May Be Ordered in Donelson Case
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

POST TRIPOD: Faces "Figueroa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RADIATION ONCOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RADIOSHACK CORP: Litigation Ongoing in "Ordonez" Case
RADIOSHACK CORP: Parties in "Redman" & "Aliano" Actions in Talk
RADIOSHACK CORP: Oral Argument in FLSA Case Appeal Held

RADIOSHACK CORP: Parties in NY Suit Await Appeals Court Decision
RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces "Singh" and "Snyder" Class Actions
RADIOSHACK CORP: Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Suit Resolved
RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Approved Settlement in FACTA Litigation
RCI HOSPITALITY: Trial This Year on Pending Issues in Class Suit

RESTORATION HARDWARE: Class Member Files Notice of Appeal
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Faces "Ding" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Faces Two Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SEMILEDS CORPORATION: Court Okayed Notice of Suit Dismissal
SHOE CARNIVAL: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal

SUPRIME CAR: "Vazquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TDC DOORS: Faces "Xichotencatl" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
THREE AMIGOS: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Illegally Applies Interest Rate, Suit Says
TREES R US: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Gonzalez" Suit Says

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Service Advertisements
UBS-CITIGROUP: DBTCA Faces Class Action Over Role as Trustee
URS PROFESSIONAL: 4th Cir. Affirms Decision in ERISA Suit
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Dismissed Securities Litigation Appeal
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling in Israel Class Action

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: April 3 Hearing on Bid to Nix Securities Suit
VIATOR INC: Settlement Has Initial OK; March 25 Final Hearing
WAL-MART STORES: Considers Petition for Supreme Court Review
WARNER MUSIC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Jan. 8
WARNER MUSIC: Reply Date on Class Cert. Brief Not Yet Set

WATTS WATER: Faces "Meyers" Suit Over Defective Supply Lines
WEST MARINE: Court Denies Preliminary OK of Deal in "Taylor" Suit
WESTMINSTER MINT: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss HPA Suit
WILLBROS GROUP: Faces "Walters" Class Action
WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: Judge Narrows "Fullwood" FACTA Suit

WRIGHT MEDICAL: PROFEMUR(R) Claims Accrual Was $16.8MM at Dec. 31
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Cases Over CONSERVE(R) Exceed 700
ZOLMAN TIRE: Accord Has Initial Okay; April 15 Final Hearing Set
ZUFFA LLC: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of MMA Promotion


                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeals Court Expected to Rule on January 19
------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that an Appeals Court
is expected to issue its decision on or before January 19, 2015 in
the appeal related to the Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and
Davis v. American Commercial Security Services, filed July 12,
2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the
"Augustus case").

The Company said, "The Augustus case is a certified class action
involving allegations that we violated certain California state
laws relating to rest breaks. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, which
sought damages in the amount of $103.1 million, and we filed a
motion for decertification of the class. On July 6, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court"), heard plaintiffs' motion for damages on the rest break
claim and our motion to decertify the class. On July 31, 2012, the
Superior Court denied our motion and entered judgment in favor of
plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million. The $89.7
million amount did not include plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

"We filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State
of California, Second Appellate District (the "Appeals Court"), on
August 29, 2012. The plaintiffs filed three separate motions for
attorneys' fees with the Superior Court. One motion sought
attorneys' fees from the common fund. (The common fund refers to
the approximately $89.7 million judgment entered in favor of the
plaintiffs.) The other two motions sought attorneys' fees from us
in an aggregate amount of approximately $12.4 million. On October
12, 2012, we filed oppositions to the two fee motions seeking
attorneys' fees from us with the Superior Court.

"On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court heard all three fee
motions and it granted plaintiffs' fee motion with respect to the
common fund in full. The Superior Court denied one fee motion in
its entirety and reduced the other fee motion to approximately
$4.5 million. We strongly disagree with the decisions of the
Superior Court with respect to both the underlying case and the
award of attorneys' fees and costs. We firmly believe that we have
complied with applicable law.

"We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Appeals Court,
and on October 21, 2014, the Appeals Court heard oral arguments.
The Appeals Court is expected to issue its decision on or before
January 19, 2015."


ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in "Bucio" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that oral argument
relating to the appeal has not been scheduled in the Consolidated
Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on
April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco (the "Bucio case").

The Company said, "The Bucio case is a purported class action
involving allegations that we failed to track work time and
provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing
on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of
that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify
the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the
class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying
lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class
certification issues. We filed our responsive brief on November
15, 2012. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been
scheduled."


ANDREW LICHTENSTEIN: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Delaware Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Andrew Lichtenstein, Inc. d/b/a Lichtensteinre
d/b/a doctormortgage.com, Andrew Lichtenstein, and John Does 1-12,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10310 (N.D. Ill., December 23, 2014), arises out
of the unsolicited advertisements sent by the Defendants through
fax to promote their business of brokering and financing real
estate transactions.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company with its
principal place of business in Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


ARRIS GROUP: Court Dismisses Claims in Pension Fund Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Arris Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2014, that
on December 11, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an
order granting preliminary approval of the agreement of the
parties to dismiss as moot all claims in the derivative action
styled The Fire and Police Pension Fund, San Antonio v. Robert J.
Stanzione et. al., C.A. No. 10078-VCG.  The Derivative Action
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the Board of
Directors of ARRIS Group, Inc. (the "Company") in connection with
the approval of certain provisions in the Company's credit
facility. The credit facility was subsequently amended by the
Company to delete the provisions that were the subject of the
Derivative Action. Under the terms of the Proposed Dismissal, no
damages will be awarded. Plaintiff's counsel intends to make an
application to the Court for an award of fees and expenses in an
amount not to exceed $750,000. The Company reserves the right to
oppose this fee application. Any fees and expenses awarded by the
Court will be paid by the Company.

A hearing to determine whether the Court should issue an order
granting final approval of the Proposed Dismissal or award fees
and expenses to plaintiff's counsel has been scheduled for
February 11, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. at the Delaware Court of Chancery
in Georgetown, Delaware. Pursuant to the Court's order, any
objections to any aspects of the Settlement must be filed with the
Court no later than January 26, 2015. There can be no assurance
that the Proposed Dismissal ultimately will be approved by the
Court.

Additional information concerning the terms of the proposed
Settlement, the February 11, 2015 hearing, and the requirements
for objections can be found in the Notice of Proposed Dismissal of
Class Action and Plaintiff's Fee Application, available at
http://is.gd/z4z4Tf


ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Stockholder Class Action Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in its Amendment No. 1 to Form 10
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15,
2014, that since the announcement on October 13, 2014 of the Atlas
Merger and the APL Merger, Atlas Energy, APL and the other parties
to the mergers have been named as defendants in putative
stockholder class action complaints challenging the transactions.
Although New Atlas has not been named as a defendant in these
complaints, certain of our expected officers have been named as
defendants, and the litigation could delay or impede the
consummation of the separation and distribution.

The Company said, "As of December 15, 2014, we are aware that
Atlas Energy, Atlas Energy's general partner, Targa Resources,
Trident GP Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources created
in connection with the Atlas Merger), and the members of the Atlas
Energy board, including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New
Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman,
have been named as defendants in two putative stockholder class
action complaint challenging the Atlas Merger filed in the Court
of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases
are captioned: Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No.
GD-14-019658 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 22, 2013) and Jeffrey Ayers
v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020255 (Pa. Ct.
Comm. Pls. Nov. 3, 2014). We are also aware that APL, APL's
general partner, Atlas Energy, Targa Resources, Targa Resources
Partners, Targa Resource Partners' general partner, Trident MLP
Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources Partners created
in connection with the APL Merger), and the members of the APL
board, including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New
Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman,
have been named as defendants in five putative stockholder class
action complaints challenging the APL Merger, four filed in the
Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and one
filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. These cases
are captioned: Michael Envin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et
al., Case No. GD-14-019245 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 17, 2013),
Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020108 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 31,
2014), Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. GD-14-020729 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Nov. 10, 2014), Irving
Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-
22208 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Dec. 5, 2014) and William B. Federman
Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P.,
et al., Case No. CJ-2014-04087 (Okla. D. Ct. Oct. 28, 2014)."

"The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations by,
among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the
Atlas Energy and APL unitholders in, respectively, each of the
Atlas Energy Merger and the APL Merger, and agreeing to certain
terms in each of the merger agreements that allegedly restrict the
defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable offer, and omitting
material information from the Proxy Statements. The lawsuits
further allege that those breaches were aided and abetted by some
combination of Atlas Energy, APL, Targa Resources, Targa Resources
Partners, or various affiliates of those entities named above. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, attorney's
fees, other expenses, and costs."


AVON PRODUCTS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Protect Stock Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Poovathur, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Avon Products Inc., Gina Calvario Fitzsimons, Richard
Valone, Shalabh Gupta, Robert Loughran, Michael Russnok, and John
Doe or John Does, serving as the Vice President of Human
Resources, North America Between July 31, 2006 and MAY 1, 2014,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10083 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2014), alleges that
the retirement accounts of the Defendants' employees suffered
millions of dollars in losses due to the abject failure of the
fiduciaries of the Company's retirement plan to take any action
whatsoever to protect the employees' Common Stock Fund.

Avon Products Inc. owns and operates a cosmetics company with
headquarters at 777 Third Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
      Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq.
      Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
      ZAMANSKY LLC
      50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 742-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
      E-mail: Jake@zamansky.com


BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY: Sued in Cal. Over Violation of ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan M. Reyes, individually and as representative on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Bakery and Confectionery
Union and Industry International Pension Fund, and Steven
Bertelli, David B. Durkee, Jethro A. Head, Art Montminy, Robert
Oakley, James Rivers, Randy D. Roark, Barbara Brasier, Travis
Clemens, Jon Mcpherson, Lou Minella, Doug Ruygrok, and John
Wagner, in their official capacities as Trustees, Case No. 4:14-
cv-05596 (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of anti-cutback rule of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by  eliminating the
option to age into benefits and to require that a participant be
employed at the time he or she qualified for Golden 80 or 90
benefits.

Golden 80 or 90 Plans allows a participant who had completed at
least ten years of service with a participating employer, and
whose combination of his or her age and years of service totaled
80 or 90 years, respectively, could retire and receive full
pension benefits.

Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension
Fund is a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan with its
principal office located at 10401 Connecticut Avenue, Kensington,
Maryland 20895-3960.

The Individual Defendants are Trustees for the Pension Fund which
maintains its offices at 10401 Connecticut Avenue, Kensington,
Maryland 20895.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey V. White, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GEOFFREY V. WHITE
      351 California St., Suite 1500
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 362-5658
      Facsimile: (415) 362-4115
      E-mail: gvwhite@sprynet.com


BEATS MUSIC: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
Megan Craddock, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Beats Music, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 1:14-cv-10301 (N.D. Ill., December 23, 2014), seeks to redress
the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted text messages in a
manner that violates the right of privacy of the putative class
members.

Beats Music, LLC is a subscription-based online music streaming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 488-0400
      Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
      E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com

         - and -

      Lauren E. Snyder, Esq.
      1350 N. Wells Street, Apt. A214
      Chicago, IL 60610
      Telephone: (419) 344-1146
      E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Ave, Third Floor
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

         - and -

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      125 Summer St., Suite 1030
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 738-7080
      E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
              anthony@broderick-law.com


BERKSHIRE LIFE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Proper Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Arundel Orthopedic Surgeons, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of
America and The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, Case
No. 3:14-cv-14728 (D. Mass., December 24, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide the Plaintiffs their
rightful benefits based on Defendant's improper calculation of
loss of gross monthly revenue.

Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America underwrites, markets,
sells and issues disability income insurance and disability-
related insurance products.

The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America is a mutual
insurance company with its headquarters located at 7 Hanover
Square, New York, N.Y 10004.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      2 International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Phase 1 Awards in Pradaxa Settlement Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, in a decision dated Dec. 29, 2014, approved
phase one awards under the master settlement agreement between the
defendants and consenting plaintiffs in the litigation styled IN
RE PRADAXA (DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
NO. 3:12-MD-02385-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  The MSA provides for the
claims and allocation process and requires that certain
percentages of eligible enrolled-claimants participate in the
settlement in order for the settlement to become binding, ranging
from 92% to 95% based on injury category.

A full-text copy of Judge Herndon's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/CBR85zfrom Leagle.com.

In Re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability
Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by Mark R. Niemeyer, Esq. --
niemeyer@ngklawfirm.com -- Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse LLC, Michael
A. London, Douglas & London PC, Mikal C. Watts, Esq. --
mcwatts@wattsguerra.com -- Watts Guerra Craft, LLP, Roger C.
Denton, Esq. -- rdenton@uselaws.com -- Schlichter, Bogard et al. -
St. Louis, Seth A. Katz, Burg Simpson Eldridge et al, Steven D.
Davis, Esq. -- SDavis@torhoermanlaw.com -- TorHoerman Law & Tor A.
Hoerman, Esq. -- thoerman@torhoermanlaw.com -- TorHoerman Law LLC.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Dan H. Ball, Esq. -- dhball@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave, Eric
E. Hudson, Esq. -- eric.hudson@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP &
Paul W Schmidt, Esq. -- pschmidt@cov.com -- Covington & Burling
LLP.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & Co KG, Defendant, represented
by Beth S. Rose, -- brose@sillscummis.com -- at Sills Cummis &
Gross P.C..

Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Defendant, represented by
Beth S. Rose, Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. & Paul W Schmidt,
Covington & Burling LLP.

Bidachem S.P.A., Defendant, represented by Beth S. Rose, Esq.
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C..

Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dan H.
Ball, Bryan Cave, Eric E. Hudson, Butler Snow LLP & Paul W
Schmidt, Covington & Burling LLP.

Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Dan H. Ball, Bryan Cave, Eric E. Hudson, Butler Snow LLP & Paul W
Schmidt, Covington & Burling LLP.

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Dan H. Ball, Bryan Cave, Eric E. Hudson, Butler Snow LLP & Paul W
Schmidt, Covington & Burling LLP.

Boehringer Ingelheim Roxane Inc., Defendant, represented by Dan H.
Ball, Bryan Cave, Eric E. Hudson, Butler Snow LLP & Paul W
Schmidt, Covington & Burling LLP.

Aetna, Inc., Movant, represented by David C Harrison, Lowey
Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey Dannenberg et al.

AvMed Health Plans, Movant, represented by David C Harrison, Esq.
-- dharrison@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W
Cohen, Esq. -- rcohen@lowey.com -- at Lowey Dannenberg et al.

BCBSM, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota,
Movant, represented by David C Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al &
Richard W Cohen, Lowey Dannenberg et al.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Movant, represented by
David C Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey
Dannenberg et al.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Movant, represented
by David C Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen,
Lowey Dannenberg et al.

Centene Corporation, Movant, represented by David C Harrison,
Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey Dannenberg et al.

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Movant, represented by
David C Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey
Dannenberg et al.

Government Employees Health Association, Movant, represented by
David C Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey
Dannenberg et al.

Group Health Cooperative, Movant, represented by David C Harrison,
Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey Dannenberg et al.

Health Care Services Corp., Movant, represented by David C
Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey
Dannenberg et al.

Humana, Inc., Movant, represented by David C Harrison, Lowey
Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey Dannenberg et al.

Johns Hopkins Healthcare, LLC, Movant, represented by David C
Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey
Dannenberg et al.

KPS Health Plans, Movant, represented by David C Harrison, Lowey
Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey Dannenberg et al.

Premera Blue Cross, Movant, represented by David C Harrison, Lowey
Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey Dannenberg et al.

United Healthcare Services, Inc., Movant, represented by David C
Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey
Dannenberg et al.

WellCare Health Plans, Inc., Movant, represented by David C
Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey
Dannenberg et al.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Movant, represented by David
C Harrison, Lowey Dannenberg et al & Richard W Cohen, Lowey
Dannenberg et al.


CALIFORNIA: Cal Fire Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
David LaClair, Byron Darrington, Sr., Gregory Ewing, Wayne
Howerton, David Cabral, Christopher Palmer, Branden Smith, Cal
Fire Firefighters Local 2881 v. State of California, Cal Fire,
California Department of Human Resources ("CalHR"), Case No. 3:14-
cv-05614 (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Cal Fire is a department and agency of the State of California.

California Department of Human Resources the State department and
agency designated as the representative of the Governor of the
State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James W. Henderson Jr., Esq.
      CARROLL BURDICK & MCDONOUGH LLP
      980 9th Street, Suite 380
      Sacramento, CA 95814
      Telephone: (916) 446-5297
      Facsimile: (916) 448-5047
      E-mail: jhenderson@cbmlaw.com


CHICAGO HEIGHTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Lango" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Lango, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. Chicago Heights Foodmart, Inc. d/b/a 1 Stop Center,
and Murad M. Husain individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-10353 (N.D.
Ill., December 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a convenient store located 431 West
Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, IL 60411.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Overholser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-09796
(C.D. Cal., December 23, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's
false, deceptive and unfair debt-collection practices.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is engaged in the business of
collecting or attempting to collect, directly or indirectly, debts
owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin III, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6565 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 410
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Telephone: (323) 940-1700
      Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
      E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
              Nick@mblawapc.com


DAIFUKU AMERICA: "Chau" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thoai Chau, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees v. Daifuku America Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01133
(W.D. Tex., December 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      Jonathan Sandstrom Hill, Esq.
      ROSS LAW P.C.
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawgroup.com
              jonathan@rosslawpc.com


DAP PRODUCTS: Faces "Carton" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carton, Cynthia Finnk, Rocco Lano, Laurina Leato, Marilyn
Listander and Roger Mammon v. DAP Products, Inc., National
Express, Inc., and RPM International, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04015
(D. Md., December 24, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's false
and misleading marketing and packing of its XHose or XHose Pro as
expandable, lightweight garden hose that was tough, durable, and
long lasting, when in fact is defective and predisposed to
leaking, bursting, seeping, and dripping.

DAP Products, Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of caulks,
sealants, construction adhesives, insulating foams, spackling,
glazing and other general home care and improvement products.

National Express, Inc. was responsible for testing the XHose prior
to selling the product to consumers, marketing the XHose and
providing customer service to consumers purchasing the XHose.

RPM International, Inc. is a multinational holding company with
subsidiaries that manufacture and market high-performance
coatings, sealants and specialty chemicals, primarily for
maintenance, repair and improvement applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Ulwick, Esq.
      KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
      One South Street, Suite 2600
      Baltimore, MA 21202
      Telephone: (410) 7 52-6030
      Facsimile: (410) 539 -1269
      E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Chicago Office
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      E-mail: kcarcoll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: JosephSauder@chimicles.com
              MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com


DIRECT BUSINESS: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Delaware Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Direct Business Lending, LLC d/b/a Direct
Business Capital, Dan Allcorn, and John Does 1-12, Case No. 1:14-
cv-10316 (N.D. Ill., December 23, 2014), arises out of the
unsolicited advertisements sent by the Defendants through fax in
an attempt to promote their business of providing financing for
small businesses seeking funds.

The Defendants own and operate a lending company that provides
financing for small businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


ELECSYS CORPORATION: Faces "Stein" Class Action Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elecsys Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2014, for the
quarter ended October 31, 2014, that the Company faces the class
action Shiva Y. Stein v. Elecsys Corporation (Case No. 14CV07182).

On November 4, 2014, Elecsys Corporation (the "Company") entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement" with
Lindsay Corporation ("Lindsay"), a Delaware corporation and
Matterhorn Merger Sub, Inc., a Kansas corporation and indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Lindsay ("Merger Sub" and, together
with Lindsay, the "Parties"), pursuant to, and subject to the
terms and conditions of, which Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger
as a wholly owned subsidiary of Lindsay.

A purported class action complaint relating to the Merger was
filed on November 12, 2014 by Shiva Y. Stein in the District Court
of Johnson County, Kansas on behalf of putative classes of the
Company's public stockholders.  The complaint names as defendants
the members of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board"), the
Company, Lindsay Corporation and Matterhorn Merger Sub, Inc.  The
case generally alleges that members of the Board breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders with respect to the
Merger Agreement, and that the other defendants aided and abetted
that breach.

The case seeks, among other things, injunctive relief preventing
the consummation of the merger, damages and an award of
plaintiff's expenses and attorneys' fees.  The outcome of this
lawsuit is uncertain.  The Company and the Board believe that the
claims asserted in the suit are without merit and intend to defend
themselves vigorously against the claims.


ELECSYS CORPORATION: Faces "Latoski" Class Action Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elecsys Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2014, for the
quarter ended October 31, 2014, that the Company faces the class
action Steven Latoski v. Elecsys Corporation (Case No. 14CV07472).

On November 4, 2014, Elecsys Corporation (the "Company") entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement" with
Lindsay Corporation ("Lindsay"), a Delaware corporation and
Matterhorn Merger Sub, Inc., a Kansas corporation and indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Lindsay ("Merger Sub" and, together
with Lindsay, the "Parties"), pursuant to, and subject to the
terms and conditions of, which Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger
as a wholly owned subsidiary of Lindsay.

A purported class action complaint relating to the Merger was
filed on November 26, 2014 by Steven Latowski in the District
Court of Johnson County, Kansas on behalf of putative classes of
the Company's public stockholders.  The complaint names as
defendants the members of the Board, the Company, Lindsay
Corporation and Matterhorn Merger Sub, Inc.  The case generally
alleges that members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's stockholders with respect to the Merger
Agreement, and that the other defendants aided and abetted that
breach.

The case seeks, among other things, injunctive relief preventing
the consummation of the merger, damages and an award of
plaintiff's expenses and attorneys' fees.  The outcome of this
lawsuit is uncertain.  The Company and the Board believe that the
claims asserted in the suit are without merit and intend to defend
themselves vigorously against the claims.


EPICOR SOFTWARE: April 24 Final Hearing in Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Epicor Software Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that a final hearing
was set for April 24, 2015, at which hearing the plaintiffs shall
report to the Court on the payment of claims to the Epicor
shareholders related to the State Court Shareholder Litigation.

In connection with the announcement of the proposed acquisition of
Epicor Software Corporation ("Legacy Epicor") by funds advised by
Apax in April 2011, four putative stockholder class action suits
were filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, and
two such suits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court. The actions
filed in California were entitled Kline v. Epicor Software Corp.
et al., (filed Apr. 6, 2011); Tola v. Epicor Software Corp. et
al., (filed Apr. 8, 2011); Watt v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed Apr. 11, 2011), and Frazer v. Epicor Software et al.,
(filed Apr. 15, 2011). The actions filed in Delaware were entitled
Field Family Trust Co. v. Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed
Apr. 12, 2011) and Hull v. Klaus et al., (filed Apr. 22, 2011).
Amended complaints were filed in the Tola and Field Family Trust
actions on April 13, 2011 and April 14, 2011, respectively.
Plaintiff Kline dismissed his lawsuit on April 18, 2011 and
shortly thereafter filed an action in federal district court.
Kline then dismissed his federal lawsuit on July 22, 2011.

The state court suits alleged that the Legacy Epicor directors
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, among
others, by seeking to complete the sale of Legacy Epicor to funds
advised by Apax through an allegedly unfair process and for an
unfair price and by omitting material information from the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 that
Legacy Epicor filed on April 11, 2011 with the SEC. The complaints
also alleged that Legacy Epicor, Apax Partners, L.P. and Element
Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the directors in the alleged
breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought certification as
a class and relief that included, among other things, an order
enjoining the tender offer and merger, rescission of the merger,
and payment of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 25, 2011, plaintiff Hull filed a motion in Delaware
Chancery Court for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the
parties from taking any action to consummate the transaction. On
April 28, 2011, plaintiff Hull withdrew this motion. On December
30, 2011, Hull dismissed his Delaware suit.

On May 2, 2011, after engaging in discovery, plaintiffs advised
that they did not intend to seek injunctive relief in connection
with the merger, but would instead file an amended complaint
seeking damages in California Superior Court following the
consummation of the tender offer. On May 11, 2011, the Superior
Court for the County of Orange entered an Order consolidating the
Tola, Watt, and Frazer cases pursuant to a joint stipulation of
the parties. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on
September 1, 2011, which made essentially the same claims as the
original complaints. Plaintiffs Kline and Field Family Trust have
both joined in the amended complaint.

"We filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to this amended complaint
on September 29, 2011. The demurrers were heard on December 12,
2011, and the Court overruled them. The Defendants answered the
Complaint on December 22, 2011. On June 22, 2012, the court
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissed
Mr. Hackworth as a defendant," the Company said.

"After the parties had completed fact discovery and begun expert
discovery, plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to add
two new defendants, the Company's former chief financial officer
and the Company's former financial advisor, Moelis & Company. On
February 22, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs leave, and
plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed. On April 5, 2013,
pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court dismissed
Legacy Epicor from this action with prejudice. On April 29, 2013,
the Court overruled demurrers by the new defendants to the Third
Amended Complaint.

"Although we believed this lawsuit was without merit and have
vigorously defended against the claims, the parties engaged in a
mediation on October 21, 2013. Following the mediation, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action,
subject to the approval of the Court. On May 23, 2014, the Court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and ordered the
creation of a settlement fund of $18 million from the various
defendants and their insurers.

"On October 24, 2014, the hearing on final approval of the
settlement was held and the court approved the settlement and
issued a final order and judgment.  A final hearing was set for
April 24, 2015, at which hearing the plaintiffs shall report to
the Court on the payment of claims to the Epicor shareholders.
During the year ended September 30, 2014, we paid $7.7 million to
settle our portion of the litigation. As of September 30, 2014, we
do not believe we will pay any additional amounts for the
litigation, and as such, we have no remaining liability recorded
for the litigation as of September 30, 2014."


FLAGSTAR BANK: Doesn't Pay Workers Properly, "Westover" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randolff Westover, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, Case No. 2:14-cv-01953
(W.D. Wash., December 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation.

Flagstar Bank, FSB is a federal savings bank doing business in and
maintaining offices throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
      Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 277-7235
      Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
      Email: helland@nka.com
             dbrome@nka.com


FORCE FACTOR: Falsely Marketed Testosterone Supplement, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Camey and Raymond Alvandi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Force Factor, LLC, a
Massachusetts Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-14717
(D. Mass., December 23, 2014), alleges that the Defendant made
false and misleading representations of its Test X180 line of
testosterone boosting supplements as supplements designed to
dramatically boost testosterone levels by as much as 99%, when in
fact clinical tests found that the ingredient has no effect on
testosterone levels.

Force Factor, LLC manufactures and distributes dietary supplements
sold online and in retail environments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
              joel@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumeradvocates.com

         - and -

      Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed "Malon" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that Andrew Malon,
individually and purportedly on behalf of all other Franklin
Financial stockholders, filed on October 1, 2014, a class action
complaint against the Company's Defendants and TowneBank, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond
Division (Case No. 3:14-cv-00671-HEH). The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by allegedly agreeing to sell the company to
TowneBank without first taking steps to ensure that the Company's
stockholders would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration
under the circumstances, by allegedly  agreeing to terms with
TowneBank that benefit themselves and/or TowneBank without regard
for the Company's stockholders and by allegedly agreeing to terms
with TowneBank that discourage other bidders.  The plaintiff also
alleges that TowneBank aided and abetted in such breaches of duty.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the
defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger, as
well as other equitable relief and/or money damages in the event
that the transaction is completed. On October 17, 2014, TowneBank
and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On
December 10, 2014, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.


GARDEN FRESH: Cal. App. Court Grants Peremptory Writ of Mandate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Cynthia Aaron of the Court of Appeals of California Fourth
District, Division One, granted a petition for a writ of mandate
in the appellate case of GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent,
ALICIA MORENO, Real Party in Interest, Case No. D066028 (Cal. Ct.
App.)

Alicia Moreno was an employee of Garden Fresh Restaurant. She
signed two arbitration agreements during her employment. She filed
a lawsuit against Garden Fresh Restaurant alleging unfair and
unlawful competition, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide
all wages when due. She also brought a representative claim
pursuant to pursuant to Private Attorney General Act of 2004 or
PAGA for penalties for Labor Code violations suffered by her and
other aggrieved employees.

Garden Fresh moved to compel arbitration of Moreno's claims, on an
individual basis only, based on the arbitration agreements that
Moreno signed. Garden Fresh requested that the court dismiss
Moreno's class and representative claims, arguing that the
parties' arbitration agreements did not contemplate class- or
representative-based arbitration. The trial court granted the
motion to compel arbitration, but specifically left to the
arbitrator to decide the question whether the arbitration
agreements between the parties contemplated class wide and/or
representative arbitration, thereby denying Garden Fresh's request
that only Moreno's individual claims be sent to arbitration.

Garden Fresh filed a petition for a writ of mandate, seeking a
peremptory writ, requesting the court to direct the trial court to
vacate that portion of its order leaving to the arbitrator to
determine whether the parties' arbitration agreements, which are
silent on the issue, contemplated class and/or representative
arbitration.  The question that Garden Fresh's petition presents
is "who decides whether an agreement to arbitrate disputes between
the parties to the agreement authorizes class and/or
representative arbitration when the contract is silent on the
matter -- the arbitrator or the court?"

Justice Aaron granted Garden Fresh's request and directed the
trial court to vacate that portion of its March 28, 2014 order
leaving it to the arbitrator to determine whether the parties
agreed to class and/or representative arbitration, to conduct
further proceedings as necessary to determine whether the parties'
arbitration agreement contemplates class and/or representative
arbitration, and whether the plaintiff's representative PAGA
claims may be arbitrated, or rather, whether that claim should be
bifurcated; and to enter a new order setting forth the court's
determination as to the  issues.

A copy of Judge Aaron's order dated November 17 is available at
http://is.gd/JZENXffrom Leagle.com

Dena Harandi -- dharandi@morganlewis.com -- and Melinda S.
Riechert -- mriechert@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, for Petitioner

Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- and Norman B.
Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawlj.com -- at Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, for Real Party in Interest

The panel for the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
consists of Associate Justices Cynthia Aaron, James A. McIntyre
and Acting Presiding Justice Richard Huffman.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: NJ Judge Grants Conditional Cert. in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph E. Irenas of the District of New
Jersey granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in
the case DONALD MADDY, KURT FREDRICK, FREDRICK R. SHELLHAMMER,
III, FRANK MICHIENZI, MARIO LAUREANO, ANOTHONY CHELPATY, WILLIAM
MADDEN, STEVEN LE BLANC, JEFFREY SCOTT WILKERSON, JEFFREY
NACARETTE, PHILLIP ERIC BENSON, BRADLEY PALMER, THOMAS KISS,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York corporation,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-0490 (JEI/KMW) (D. N.J.)

Plaintiffs are currently, or have worked as, service technicians
for GE's Appliances Division, in a business segment called GE
Consumer Home Service. They receive an hourly wage, plus overtime
for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.  They brought this
putative collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover allegedly unpaid overtime
compensation  and the wage and hour laws of multiple states,
including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Florida,
Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Michigan, California, and
Illinois.

Plaintiffs alleged that their paid time generally begins when they
arrive at their first service calls and ends when they complete
their last calls. However they claim that do pre-shift computer
work, as they are instructed to begin each day by putting in their
vans, and logging in to get their list of calls for the day. They
also state that they often work through their lunch period to meet
their goals. They claim that they were not paid for additional
"off the clock" work, including accepting and organizing shipments
of new parts, and vehicle maintenance.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify the lawsuit as
a collective action.

Judge Iranas granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
action certification.

A copy of Judge Iranas's opinion dated November 14, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/Y1M4Qwfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Hwy N #402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Telephone: +1 856-685-7420
     Email: rswartz@swartz-legal.com

          - and -

     Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
     ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
     888 SE 3rd Avenue # 400
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
     Telephone: (954) 523-0550

Counsel for Defendant:

     Nina Markey, Esq.
     Rachel Fendell Satinsky, Esq.
     Aaron Reed, Esq.
     Daniel B. Boatright, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     Three Parkway
     1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Telephone: (267) 402-3000
     Facsimile: (267) 402-3131
     Email: nmarkey@littler.com
            rsatinsky@littler.com
            areed@littler.com
            dboatright@littler.com


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Files Responsive Docs in "Hamilton" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12,
2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company has filed responsive pleadings in the Hamilton Wage and
Hour class action and, following initial discovery, is positioning
the cases to obtain a dismissal of all claims.

The Company is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking
class action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012
and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. The claims are based on alleged failure to
compensate for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning
safety wear and other activities. Management does not expect the
Company will face significant exposure for any unpaid wages.

In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a
federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the
busses is not compensable.

On January 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit upheld the district court's ruling finding no liability
for wages for time spent bussing into the facility, and on October
8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review plaintiffs'
appeal of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of their claims for
compensation for time spent bussing to the facility, effectively
reducing the Company's risk of liability on this issue in its
cases.

"Our investigation indicates that all claims for time spent on
other activities either were inapplicable to the Company's
employees or took place during times for which the Company's
employees were compensated. We have filed responsive pleadings
and, following initial discovery, are positioning the cases to
obtain a dismissal of all claims," the company said.

"As of September 30, 2014, we have not recorded a reserve for this
matter, as we believe the likelihood of our responsibility for
damages is not probable and we are currently unable to estimate a
potential range of exposure."


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Falsely Marketed Products, Sweeney Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Patrick Sweeney, Jr. and Heather Renee Copher-Sweeney, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Rockline
Industries, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-03201 (M.D. Fla., December 24,
2014), arises out of the Defendants' misrepresentations of its
flushable wipe products that are flushable and sewer and septic
safe, when in fact they are defective and do not perform as
represented and guaranteed by Defendants.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation manufactures, markets, and sells
personal care, consumer tissue, and health care products
worldwide.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. owns and operates chains of large discount
department stores, supermarkets, and warehouse stores.

Rockline Industries, Inc. designs and manufactures a wide variety
of consumer products that are distributed and sold worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Garcia, Esq.
      AG LAW, INC.
      742 South Village Circle
      Tampa, FL 33606
      Telephone: (813) 259-9555
      Facsimile: (813) 254-9555
      E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com

         - and -

      Christopher D. Boutwell, Esq.
      Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
      William H. Fagerstrom, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
      Post Office Box 4160
      Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: chris.boutwell@beasleyallen.com
              rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com
              will.fagerstrom@beasleyallen.com


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Provides Update in Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-K/A Report
(Amendment No. 2) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 12, 2014, for the fiscal year period ended
December 31, 2013, provided updates on a pending appeal related to
a securities class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On June 8, 2012, a federal securities class
action and shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against Genaera Corporation and its
officers, directors, major shareholders and trustee ("Genaera
Defendants") for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to
Genaera shareholders. The lawsuit also names us and our Chief
Executive Officer John Higgins as additional defendants for
allegedly aiding and abetting the Genaera Defendants' various
breaches of fiduciary duties based on our purchase of a licensing
interest in a development-stage pharmaceutical drug program from
the Genaera Liquidating Trust in May 2010 and its subsequent sale
of half of its interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value
Fund, Inc."

"Following an amendment to the complaint and a round of motions to
dismiss, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
on August 12, 2013.  On September 10, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal. According to the Third Circuit's briefing
schedule, the plaintiffs opening brief is currently due on or
before February 18, 2014, our answering brief is due thirty days
later, and the plaintiff's reply brief, if any, is due fourteen
days after that.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against the claims
against us and Mr. Higgins in the lawsuit. Due to the complex
nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the
outcome of this matter is not presently determinable."


LOTT MANAGEMENT: "Dudley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
April Dudley and Latora Wright, individually and on behalf of a
class of persons similarly situated v. Lott Management, Inc. Lott
Restaurants LLC, Lott #1, Inc., Derrick Lott, and Christine Lott
d/b/a McDonald's, McDonald's USA, LLC, and McDonald's Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10236 (N.D. Ill., December 20, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, unpaid straight time and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys'
fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate McDonald's restaurant franchise
located at O'Hare International Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glen Joseph Dunn Jr., Esq.
      Angel Petrov Bakov, Esq.
      GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES
      221 N LaSalle St, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 546-5056
      E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com
              abakov@gjdlaw.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
      JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 789-9700
      Facsimile: (312) 789-9702
      E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Lead Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended November 2, 2014, that the Lead
Plaintiff in a class action filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On July 2, 2013, plaintiff Houssam Alkhoury filed a putative
shareholder class action entitled Alkhoury v. lululemon athletica
inc., et al., No. 13-CV-4596 (S.D.N.Y.) against lululemon, a
certain director and a certain officer of the Company
(collectively, "Defendants"). On October 1, 2013, the Court
appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund as Lead
Plaintiff and on November 1, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a proposed class
of purchasers of lululemon stock between September 7, 2012 through
June 11, 2013 (the "Complaint").

In its Complaint, Lead Plaintiff asserted causes of action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Defendants based on certain public disclosures made by the
Company relating to lululemon's product quality and the March 2013
sheer Luon issue.

On January 15, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of lululemon stock between September
7, 2012 through January 10, 2014. In its Amended Complaint, Lead
Plaintiff added new claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain of lululemon's
public disclosures related to the Company's ongoing quality
control improvements and the impact of those improvements on the
Company's financial results.

On April 18, 2014, the Court dismissed all of Lead Plaintiff's
claims for failure to state a claim.

On May 16, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company
believes there is no merit to the appeal.


MACY'S CORPORATE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Wiegman, on behalf of herself and of all others similarly
situated v. Macy's Corporate Services, Inc., A California
Corporation, d/b/a Macy's, Inc., and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 8:14-
cv-02041 (C.D. Cal., December 23, 2014), seeks to redress the
Defendant's practice of sending automated SMS text messages to
mobile telephones without first obtaining consent.

Macy's Corporate Services, Inc.

      Vincent D. Howard, Esq.
      Gregory H. D. Alumit, Esq.
      HOWARD LAW, PC
      675 Anton Boulevard, First Floor
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 872-5925
      Facsimile: (888) 533-7310
      E-mail: vhoward@howardlawpc.com
              galumit@howardlawpc.com

         - and -

      Joseph R. Manning Jr., Esq.
      Michael J. Manning, Esq.
      Phillip B. Nghiem, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R. MANNING, JR.
      4667 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 200-8755
      Facsimile: (866) 843-8308

         - and -

      David M. Arbogast, Esq.
      ARBOGAST LAW
      11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 477-7200
      E-mail: david@arbogastlawpc.com


MALLARD CLEANING: "Curbelo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Curbelo, Leonardo Rosa, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. Mallard Cleaning Systems, LLC, Case No.
6:14-cv-02103 (M.D. Fla., December 24, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mallard Cleaning Systems, LLC is in the business of operating a
roof and exterior cleaning business located at 7006 Stapoint
Court, Suite G, Winter Park, Florida 32792.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly De Arcangelis Woods, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 420-5956
      E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Court Dismissed Class Claims in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of contract
claims in the class action lawsuit filed by Matthew B. Johnson, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents similarly
situated (the "Johnson Plaintiffs").

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the "Johnson
Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos.
A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756).  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing
practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words "free"
and "regular price."  The Complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including
attorneys' fees).

Upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S. District Court dismissed
the Complaint, without prejudice, and the Johnson Plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same U.S. District
Court making substantially the same allegations as in the original
Complaint.

On February 21, 2014, Jos. A. Bank filed a motion to dismiss and,
on August 19, 2014, the Court dismissed the class claims and
certain other breach of contract claims.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims," the
Company said.

On March 11, 2014, Men's Wearhouse entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Jos. A. Bank pursuant to which, on June 18,
2014, Men's Wearhouse acquired all of the issued and outstanding
shares of common stock of Jos. A. Bank for $65.00 net per share in
cash.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against "Lucas and "Salerno" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that David Lucas
and Eric Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California
residents similarly situated, filed on July 9, 2014, a putative
class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District
Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB JLB).  The
Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated
the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price
discounts and free apparel promotions.  The Complaint seeks, among
other relief, certification of the case as a class action,
permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution
including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and
attorney fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend the case," the Company said.

On March 11, 2014, Men's Wearhouse entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Jos. A. Bank pursuant to which, on June 18,
2014, Men's Wearhouse acquired all of the issued and outstanding
shares of common stock of Jos. A. Bank for $65.00 net per share in
cash.


METHODIST HOSPITAL: Judge Grants Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas
granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the
case entitled JOY CORCIONE, et al., Plaintiff, v. METHODIST
HOSPITAL, Defendant, Civil Action No. G-14-160 (S.D. Tex.)

Joy Corcione, a nurse at Methodist Hospital, sued the hospital
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201,
et seq.  Corcione alleges that Methodist improperly denied her and
other similarly situated nurses pay for meal breaks during which
they were not completely relieved of job duties, and denied them
overtime compensation as a result. Three other nurses, Susan Hall,
Gisela Bryant, and Fatima Salem have consented to join as opt-in
plaintiffs.  Corcione contends that because the meal-break time
was not included in the nurses' paid hours, Methodist improperly
recorded that the nurses did not work more than 40 hours per week
and denied them overtime pay.

Methodist responded that its policies discourage meal-break
interruptions and state that employees should turn off their
pagers or phones or give them to on-duty employees during the meal
break. Methodist also allows employees whose meal breaks are
automatically deducted to manually reverse the deduction if work
interruptions reduce their actual break to less than 20 minutes.
Methodist instructs such employees to log in to the time recording
system at the end of their shifts and enter a "No Lunch" code to
signify that they should be paid for the meal break.

Corcione moved for issuance of notice to potential class members
and conditional certification of an opt-in class.

Judge Rosenthal granted Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and ordered that notice be issued to the potential
class of nurses employed at Methodist's Texas Medical Center,
Willowbrook, or San Jacinto locations at any time from November
13, 2011 to the present, who were subject to an automatic
deduction of their meal breaks and were either interrupted or were
subject to interruptions during those breaks.

Methodist was required by December 12, 2014, to provide Corcione
with the names, current or last known addresses and telephone
numbers, and dates of employment of the class members. By the same
date, the parties were to submit a proposed notice for the court
to review, with any disputed language highlighted. A status
conference was set for December 16, 2014.

A copy of Judge Rosenthal's memorandum and order dated November
14, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/GbRzHgfrom Leagle.com.

Joy Corcione, Susan Hall and Gisela Bryant, Plaintiffs, are
represented by:

     Galvin B Kennedy, Esq.
     David Wayne Hodges, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES LLP
     711 W Alabama St.
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: 713-489-9493
     Facsimile: 713-523-1116

Methodist Hospital, Defendant, are represented by G Mark Jodon --
mjodon@littler.com -- and Kevin Stephen Little --
klittle@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PC.


MINNESOTA RECOVERY: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Davis of the District of Minnesota approves the
class action settlement in the case James Herbert St. Clair and
Alee Thao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Minnesota Recovery Bureau, Inc., and
Thomas Beattie, individually, Defendants, Court File No. 12-CV-
1572 MJD/JSM (D. Minn.)

In its Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Davis defined the
Minnesota Recovery Bureau or MRB Settlement Class as "All persons
identified during an internal audit by the Minnesota Driver and
Vehicle Services Division as having had their motor vehicle
records accessed by MRB during the time period from April 21,
2011, through April 6, 2012, inclusive, using a password that was
not issued to MRB".

Justice Davis says the Stipulation of Settlement is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the MRB
Settlement Class and directed that judgment shall be entered
dismissing all claims that were or could have been asserted in the
action by plaintiffs and the class members with prejudice.
Plaintiffs and all Class Members are conclusively deemed to have
forever released, relieved, discharged, covenanted not to sue or
proceed in any way against, and consent to be enjoined from suing
(i) Minnesota Recovery Bureau, Inc.; (ii) Thomas Beattie,
individually; (iii) all past and present employees, agents,
officers, shareholders, partners, representatives, and directors
of MRB; (iv) all entities that are direct or indirect parents or
subsidiaries of MRB; (v) all entities that are directly or
indirectly under common control with MRB; (vi) all partnerships,
insurers, indemnitors, attorneys, heirs, predecessors, successors,
and assigns of MRB; (vii) all entities which MRB has added as
named insured's on its insurance policies; and (viii) all entities
that hire MRB to do repossession work, including, but not limited
to, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. d/b/a Capital One Auto Finance,
their parents, or subsidiaries ("Released Parties"), from and for
any and all actions, causes of action (in law or equity), suits,
claims, contentions, damages, losses, injuries, obligations,
liabilities, demands, debts, judgments, costs, and expenses
(including attorney fees), known and unknown, liquidated or
unliquidated, absolute or contingent, accrued or not accrued,
which they have, will have, had, ever had, claim to have, claim to
have ever had, against any of the Released Parties based in whole
or in part on, arising out of, or related in any way to the
violation or alleged violation of the Fair Credit reporting Act
and/or Driver's Privacy Protection, including, the facts,
transactions, occurrences, events, acts, omissions, or failures to
act that were alleged in the Action.

Class Counsel shall received attorneys' fees and costs in an
amount of $55,000. Defendant MRB also agrees that, within five
business days after the Effective Date of the Court's Order on
Class Counsel's Fee Petition, MRB will pay any Class Counsel
Award. Plaintiff James Herbert St. Clair as Class Representative
will receive a fee in the amount of $3,000 and Class
Representative Alee Thao will receive a fee in the amount of
$1,000.  The amounts as awarded shall be paid by MRB within five
business days of the date that the final judgment becomes
effective, as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement.

A copy of Judge Davis's final order dated November 14, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/wLMWlTfrom Leagle.com.

James Herbert St. Clair and Alee Thao, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
     CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
     367 Commerce Court
     Vadnais Heights, MN 551027
     Tel: 612-200-1495
     Fax: 651-704-0907

Thomas Beattie, individually and Minnesota Recovery Bureau, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by:

     Sally J Ferguson, Esq.
     Beth A Jenson Prouty, Esq.
     ARTHUR, CHAPMAN, KETTERING, SMETAK & PIKALA, PA
     500 Youong Quinlan Building
     81 South Ninth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: 612-339-3500
     E-mail: sjferguson@arthurchapman.com
             bajensonprouty@arthurchapman.com


MW MANUFACTURERS: "Gulbankian" Class Certified, Deal Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rya W. Zobel of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued a memorandum of decision on Dec. 29, 2014,
certifying the class of individuals led by John Gulbankian who
filed an action against MW Manufacturers, Inc., for breach of
warranty for its vinyl-clad windows.  Judge Zobel also approved
the class settlement under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, after finding that the settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate.

In support of the decision, Judge Zobel stated: "The settlement
process has been long and hard-fought, proceeding after extensive
and contentious discovery.  Settlement avoids what would certainly
be complex, expensive, and protracted litigation with substantial
uncertainty on both sides.  Counsel on both sides have
considerable experience in this area of the law and all were
zealous in their representation of their clients' interests.  The
negotiations leading to this Agreement were conducted diligently
and at arm's length with the facilitation of a respected and
experienced neutral mediator.  For all of these reasons, I find
the Proposed Settlement Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate."

The case is JOHN GULBANKIAN, et al. v. MW MANUFACTURERS, INC.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-10392-RWZ (D. Mass.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Zobel's Decision is available at http://is.gd/e7GG5ifrom
Leagle.com.

Eric Hartshorn, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra
C. Warren, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Jonas
P. Mann, Audet & Partners, LLP, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert
& LaDuca, LLP, Michael McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP, Robert
Kinney Shelquist, Esq. -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge,
Grindal, Nauen & Holstein & Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. --
sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- at Baillon Thome Jozwiak Miller &
Wanta, LLP.

Bethany Perry, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra C.
Warren, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman, Jonas P. Mann, Audet & Partners, LLP, Michael J.
Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Robert Kinney Shelquist,
Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein & Shawn J. Wanta, Baillon
Thome Jozwiak Miller & Wanta, LLP.

John Gulbankian, Plaintiff, represented by Jonas P. Mann, Audet &
Partners, LLP, Krista K. Freier, Esq. -- kkfreier@locklaw.com --
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Matthew Evan Miller, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Charles E.
Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Clayton D. Halunen,
Halunen & Associates, Craig S. Davis, Esq. -- csdavis@locklaw.com
-- Lockridge Gindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., Matthew B. Johnson, Lockridge
Gindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., Michael McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Robert Kinney Shelquist, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein &
Shawn J. Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak Miller & Wanta, LLP.

Robert D Callahan, Plaintiff, represented by Jonas P. Mann, Audet
& Partners, LLP, Krista K. Freier, Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., Matthew Evan Miller, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Alexandra C.
Warren, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Shawn J. Wanta, Baillon
Thome Jozwiak Miller & Wanta, LLP.

Jolene Connor-Hethcox, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Floyd,
Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A., Justin O'Toole Lucey, Justin O'Toole
Lucey, P.A., Stephanie D. Drawdy, Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A. &
David Pastor, Pastor Law Office, LLP.

Karl Memari, Plaintiff, represented by Justin O'Toole Lucey,
Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A., James L. Floyd, Justin O'Toole Lucey,
P.A. & Stephanie D. Drawdy, Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A..

MW Manufacturers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald R.
Frederico, dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- Pierce Atwood LLP, Gavin
G. McCarthy, gmccarthy@pierceatwood.com -- Pierce Atwood LLP,
Katherine S. Kayatta, Esq. -- kkayatta@pierceatwood.com -- Pierce
Atwood LLP, Kristina Varady, Esq. -- kvarady@pharrlaw.com -- Pharr
Law, PLLC & Steven M. Pharr, Esq. -- spharr@pharrlaw.com -- Pharr
Law, PLLC.

84 Lumber Co., Interested Party, represented by Sanjeev Manoj
Jegasothy, Esq. -- mjegasothy@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Reese,
LLP & Leslie A. Sheehan, Esq. -- lsheehan@gordonrees.com -- at
Gordon & Rees.

Kazem Karl Memari, Objector, represented by James L. Floyd, Justin
O'Toole Lucey, P.A..

Vincent Cecil Garrett, Objector, represented by James L. Floyd,
Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A..

Jolene Connor-Hethcox, Objector, represented by James L. Floyd,
Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A..


NATIONAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Parm on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. National Bank of California, N.A., Case No. 4:14-cv-
00320 (N.D. Ga., December 23, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
participated in a scheme to allow illegal online payday lenders
access to the nation's secure electronic payment transfer network
known as the ACH Network or Automated Clearing House to collect
unlawful debts.

National Bank of California, N.A. is a national banking
association incorporated in the State of California with main
offices at 12121 Wilshire Blvd., 14th Floor, Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
      DARREN KAPLAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1359 Broadway, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 999-7370
      Facsimile: (646) 390-7410
      E-mail: dkaplan@darrenkaplanlaw.com

         - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Steve Six, Esq.
      J. Austin Moore, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              six@stuevesiegel.com
              moore@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
      200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: ostrow@KOlawyers.com
              alperstein@KOlawyers.com

         - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
              jkaliel@tzlegal.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fairness Hearings Moved to May & July
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California approved a stipulation under which parties
in two class action lawsuits filed against the National Collegiate
Athletic Association agreed to a May 14 and July 16, 2015,
fairness hearings on two settlements preliminarily approved in
September 2014.  The two settlements were between Antitrust
Plaintiffs and Right of Publicity Plaintiffs and Electronic Arts
Inc. and Right of Publicity Plaintiffs and the NCAA.  The parties
agreed that an extension of the hearing will benefit class members
by allowing the parties to obtain additional contact information
for class members and the extension, the parties said, will likely
result in a higher claim rate.

The cases are EDWARD C. O'BANNON, JR., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (NCAA); ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.; and COLLEGIATE
LICENSING COMPANY, Defendants, CASE NO. 09-CV-3329-CW (N.D.
Calif.); and SAMUEL MICHAEL KELLER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (NCAA); ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.; and COLLEGIATE
LICENSING COMPANY, Defendants, CASE NOS. 09-CV-3329-CW, 09-CV-1967
CW (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Wilken's Decision
dated Dec. 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/9AbVO2from
Leagle.com.

MICHAEL D. HAUSFELD, (pro hac vice), Esq. --
mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- HILARY K. SCHERRER, Esq. --
hscherrer@hausfeld.com -- SATHYA S. GOSSELIN, Esq. --
sgosselin@hausfeld.com -- SWATHI BOJEDLA, Esq. --
sbojedla@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP, Washington, D.C.,
Antitrust Plaintiffs' Class Counsel.

Robert B. Carey (Pro Hac Vice), Esq. -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- and
Leonard W. Aragon (Pro Hac Vice), Esq. -- leonard@hbsslaw.com --
at HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, Right of
Publicity Plaintiffs' Class Counsel.

GREGORY L. CURTNER (Pro Hac Vice), Esq. --
gcurtner@schiffhardin.com -- and ROBERT J. WIERENGA, Esq. --
rwierenga@schiffhardin.com -- at SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, Ann Arbor, MI,
Attorneys for Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association.

R. James Slaughter, Esq. -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- and Robert Van
Nest, Esq. -- rvannest@kvn.com -- at KEKER & VAN NEST LLP, San
Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for Jan. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16,
2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that oral
argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
has been set for January 14, 2015, in relation to the so-called
Profit Sharing Complaint.

The Company primarily funds post-employment benefit obligations,
other than pension benefits, in accordance with a 1993 Settlement
Agreement (the "1993 Settlement Agreement"). The 1993 Settlement
Agreement resolved a class action lawsuit originally filed in 1992
regarding the restructuring of the Company's then applicable
health care and life insurance benefits. Pursuant to the 1993
Settlement Agreement, the program administrator and named
fiduciary of the Supplemental Benefit Program is the Supplemental
Benefit Program committee (the "Committee"), comprised of non-
Company individuals.

In August 2013, the Committee filed a motion for leave to amend
its February 2013 complaint (which sought injunctive relief for
the Company to provide certain information to which it was
allegedly entitled under the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit
Sharing Plan) and a proposed amended complaint (the "Profit
Sharing Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio (the "Court"). Leave to file the Profit Sharing
Complaint was granted by the Court in October 2013.

In its Profit Sharing Complaint, the Committee alleges the Company
breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement and violated ERISA by
failing to properly calculate profit sharing contributions due
under the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan. The
Committee seeks damages in excess of $50 million, injunctive
relief and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Profit
Sharing Complaint and to compel the Committee to comply with the
dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Supplemental
Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan.

In March 2014, the Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss
and ruled, among other things, that the Company waived its right
to compel the Committee to comply with the dispute resolution
provisions set forth in the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit
Sharing Plan. In April 2014, the Company appealed the Court's
refusal to compel the Committee to comply with the dispute
resolution process to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and
the briefs for the appeal were completed in June 2014. The Company
also filed a motion with the Court to stay all proceedings pending
the appeal. In May 2014, the Court granted the motion to stay all
proceedings, including discovery, pending the appeal.

Oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has
been set for January 14, 2015.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 17 Ruling Date in Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16,
2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that a court has
ordered a briefing schedule and set a ruling date for February 17,
2015 in the shareholder class action litigation.

The Company said, "In March 2013, a putative class action
complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the
Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and
Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3,
2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed
in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010
and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in
April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf
of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our
common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1,
2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our
former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J.
Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer as defendants. These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5
Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among
other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by
knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements
concerning our financial condition and future business prospects
and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings
with the SEC concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA
certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission
standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief."

"In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating
all cases before one judge sitting in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois and in July 2013, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in October 2013.
The consolidated amended complaint enlarged the proposed class
period to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen
additional current and former directors and officers as
defendants.

"On December 17, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.   On July 22, 2014, the Court
granted the defendants' Motions to Dismiss, denied the lead
plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and gave the lead plaintiff
leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint by August
22, 2014. On August 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint, which narrows the claims in two ways. First, the
plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the
defendants. The plaintiff now brings claims against only Navistar,
Dan Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The
plaintiff also shortened the putative class period. In the prior
complaint, the class period began on June 9, 2009.  In the Second
Amended Complaint, it begins on March 10, 2010.

"Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on September 23, 2014.  On October 23, 2014, the
plaintiff filed its opposition to defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
On November 7, 2014, defendants filed their reply brief in support
of defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court has ordered a briefing
schedule and set a ruling date for February 17, 2015.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Oral Argument Held MaxxForce Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16,
2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that an oral
argument occurred on December 4, 2014 related to the MaxxForce
Engine EGR Warranty Litigation.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation,
Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International
Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the
"N&C Action").  Subsequently, five additional, similar putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together with the
N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions").

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4
Action"). Subsequently, twelve additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts,
including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, and the Middle
District of Pennsylvania (together with the Par 4 Action, the
"U.S. Actions").

The U.S. Actions alleged matters substantially similar to the
Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the
U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to
certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United
States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar
vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced
EGR engine.  In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that Navistar,
Inc. failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR
Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach
of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation
and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of
monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest,
fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, Navistar International Corporation and
Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Action") seeking to
transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
all of the U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class action
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal
district courts. The MDL Action has been fully briefed, and the
majority of the responses supported Navistar's motion. An oral
argument on the MDL Action occurred on December 4, 2014.


NEW MIAMI: Ohio Court Flips "Barrow" Class Certification Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler County,
reversed the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas
granting class certification to plaintiffs-appellees, Doreen
Barrow and other similarly situated individuals, in their lawsuit,
which alleges, among other things, that the ordinance putting into
action the Automated Speed Enforcement Program operated by the
village of New Miami improperly divests the municipal court of
jurisdiction over liability challenges.

In support of its reversal, the Court of Appeals pointed out that
the record is deficient in providing it with insight as to the
trial court's analysis on the requirements for class certification
so that a meaningful review is impossible.  The Court of Appeals
concluded that in the absence of an analysis, the court is unaware
of the trial court's reasoning that may otherwise comport with
relevant case law once explained by the trial court.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the issue
so that the trial court can articulate its rationale within the
parameters of Howland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 104 Ohio St.3d 584,
2004-Ohio-6552, and Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67,
74 (1998).

The case is DOREEN BARROW, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
VILLAGE OF NEW MIAMI, et al., Defendants-Appellants, NO. CA2014-
04-092 (Cal. App. Ohio.).  A full-text copy of the opinion dated
Dec. 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/qPEbXRfrom
Leagle.com.

Rittgers & Rittgers, Charles H. Rittgers, 12 East Warren Street,
Lebanon, Ohio 45036, Michael K. Allen & Associates, Michael K.
Allen, Esq. -- mike@mkallenlaw.com -- and Joshua A. Engel, Esq. --
engel@mkallenlaw.com -- 5181 Natorp Blvd., Suite 210, Mason, Ohio
45040, and Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Paul M. DeMarco, Esq.
-- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- at 119 East Court Street, #530,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for plaintiffs-appellees, Doreen Barrow,
Diane Woods, Michelle Johnson and Don Muirheid.

Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, LLP, Wilson G. Weisenfelder, Jr.,
Esq. -- WGW@Rendigs.com -- and James J. Englert, Esq. --
JEnglert@Rendigs.com -- 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, for defendant-appellant, Village of New Miami and
defendant, Kenneth Cheeks.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Juarez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of
New York denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case entitled
RUBEN JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., Defendant, No. 14-CV-5107 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.)

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") is a federal
program that authorizes recipients to remain in the United States
for two years and to obtain an Employment Authorization Document
("EAD"), a federal work permit, and a Social Security number.

Plaintiff Ruben Juarez is a Mexican who obtained a DACA and EAD
status and had received a social security number.  Plaintiff
submitted his resume to a Northwestern Mutual representative who
was recruiting college students to become interns. Upon making
inquiry, plaintiff was informed that he must have to be a US
citizen or a green card holder for him to work at Northwestern
Mutual. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against
Northwestern Mutual alleging alienage, discrimination in violation
of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim. Defendant argues that the Complaint fails because
it does not (and cannot) plausibly allege that Northwestern Mutual
engaged in intentional, purposeful discrimination on the basis of
alienage.

In his opinion and order dated November 14, 2014, which is
available at http://is.gd/FZqFbefrom Leagle.com, Judge Forrest
denied defendant's motion.

Ruben Juarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, is represented by Adam T Klein --
atk@outtengolden.com -- Lewis M. Steel -- ls@outtengolden.com --
Michael Noah Litrownik -- mlitrownik@outtengolden.com -- Ossai
Miazad -- omiazad@outtengolden.com -- and Olivia J. Quinto -- at
Outten & Golden, LLP

Thomas Andrew Saenz and Victor Viramontes of the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Fund also serve as counsel to the
Plaintiff.

Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, is
represented by Christopher Alan Parlo -- cparlo@morganlewis.com
-- Brendan Thomas Killeen -- bkilleen@morganlewis.com -- at
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; and John A Haase -- jhaase@gklaw.com
-- Paul F. Heaton -- pheaton@gklaw.com - at Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.


PETRO RIVER: Says Oral Arguments May Be Ordered in Donelson Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2014, for the
quarter ended October 31, 2014, that oral arguments may be ordered
by the court in the case Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al.
v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action
complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No.
14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as
defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators,
including the Company, as well as all Osage County lessees and
operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or
drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA")
in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental
Policy Act ("NEPA").  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that
the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession
agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without
satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or
NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases,
concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged
nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment.

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass Energy Group, LLC, along with other
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the August 11, 2104
Proceeding on various procedural and legal arguments.  Plaintiffs
filed their response to the motion to dismiss on October 27, 2014.
Spyglass filed its reply brief on November 10, 2014 and the
plaintiffs were granted leave until November 19, 2014 to file a
surreply to Splyglass's reply brief.  Once the briefing cycle
concluded on November 19, 2014, the motion to dismiss became ripe
for determination by the court.  Oral arguments may be ordered by
the court.  There is no specific timeline by which the court must
render a ruling.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
City of Providence, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A., et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-10117 (S.D.N.Y., December 24, 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.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. is an integrated oil and gas company
incorporated in the Federative Republic of Brazil with operations
in all stages of the petroleum production process, including
exploration, refining, and marketing.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Eric J. Belfi, Esq
      Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212)818-0477
      E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
              ebelfi@labaton.com
              mstocker@labaton.com


POST TRIPOD: Faces "Figueroa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Post Tripod Inc. d/b/a Bar Harbor Grill,
Case No. 7:14-cv-10079 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Post Tripod Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at 181 E.
Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York 10543.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Reena Arora, Esq.
      EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
      30 South Broadway, 6th fl.
      Yonkers, NY 10701
      Telephone: (914) 595-0910
      Facsimile: (9140 423-0982
      E-mail: rarora@empirejustice.org


RADIATION ONCOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Huchingson, individually and on behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. Jayasree N. Rao, MD, Zulfaqqar M. Jaffar, MD, Syed
Raza, MD, Patrick Magallanes, and Jayne Frasure, individually and
in their official capacity, Case No. 5:14-cv-01118 (W.D. Tex.,
December 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are officers and directors of Radiation Oncology of
San Antonio, P.A. located at 610 E. Market Street, #2516,
San Antonio, TX 78205.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Glenn Deutsch Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 West Basse Road-Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Telephone: (210) 822-5666
      Facsimile: (210) 822-5650
      E-mail: glenn@glennlevylaw.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Litigation Ongoing in "Ordonez" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2014, that litigation is
ongoing in the case Ordonez v. RadioShack Corporation.

In May 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that
it violated California's wage and hour laws by not providing
required meal periods and rest breaks, failed to pay for all time
worked, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to pay minimum
wage and failed to maintain required records. In September 2010,
the Company removed the case to the U. S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

In July 2012, plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. In
January 2013, the court denied, without prejudice, the Motion for
Class Certification as to all claims.

In February 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the court's denial of class certification only with regard to the
rest period claim. In April 2013, the court ordered that plaintiff
could conduct limited additional discovery and file a renewed
Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff filed the renewed motion
in July 2013.

A hearing on the motion was held in February 2014, at which time
the court issued a tentative ruling granting plaintiff's motion as
to the rest period claim. Following oral argument, the court
issued orders requiring the parties to submit supplemental
evidence and briefs.

In August 2014, the court denied the Motion. The plaintiff did not
appeal this ruling. However, the litigation is ongoing.

The outcome of this case is uncertain and the ultimate resolution
of it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial statements in the period in which the
resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Parties in "Redman" & "Aliano" Actions in Talk
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2014, that the parties in the
Redman v. RadioShack; and Aliano v. RadioShack class action
lawsuits are currently in negotiations to attempt to restructure
the settlement to address the concerns expressed by the appellate
court.

In September 2011, Scott D.H. Redman filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Redman claims that the
Company violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), which amended the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, by displaying the expiration dates of
customers' credit or debit cards on electronically printed
transaction receipts. Mr. Redman filed a motion seeking to certify
a class that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an
electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions
occurring after June 3, 2008, that displayed the expiration date
of the person's credit or debit card.

In November 2011, Mario Aliano and Victoria Radavicuite filed a
similar putative class action lawsuit against the Company, also in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging similar violations of FACTA. Mr. Aliano and Ms.
Radavicuite initially filed a motion seeking to certify a class
that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an
electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions
occurring in Illinois after June 3, 2008, that displayed the
expiration date of the person's credit or debit card.

In December 2011, Mr. Aliano and Ms. Radavicuite filed an amended
complaint and an amended motion seeking to certify a class that
was not limited to transactions occurring in Illinois.

On January 11, 2012, the Aliano lawsuit was reassigned to the
judge presiding over the Redman lawsuit on the basis of
relatedness, and the two cases were consolidated for all purposes.
On January 25, 2012, the presiding judge referred the matter to
the magistrate judge assigned to the consolidated cases for
mediation. In November 2012, the parties reached a tentative
settlement.

On May 16, 2013, the parties executed a settlement agreement and
on May 29, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. Notices of the settlement were mailed to known class
members and published in several national publications. A hearing
on final approval of the settlement was held in September 2013.

In February 2014, the court granted final approval of the
settlement, however two plaintiffs who had objected to the
settlement appealed the court's grant of final approval.

In September 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the judgment approving the settlement and remanded the case for
further proceedings, citing concerns with the settlement including
the allocation of the settlement proceeds between the class and
class counsel.

The parties are currently in negotiations to attempt to
restructure the settlement to address the concerns expressed by
the appellate court. The outcome of these cases is uncertain and
the ultimate resolution of them could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the
period in which the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Oral Argument in FLSA Case Appeal Held
-------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2014, that the appeal in the
FLSA Litigation has been fully briefed and oral argument was
scheduled for December 4, 2014.

In April 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
nationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and putative statewide class actions under New York and Ohio state
laws in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, claiming that its use of the "fluctuating workweek" method
to calculate overtime for certain of its retail store managers
violates federal and state laws because the store managers receive
bonuses in addition to their fixed salaries. In June 2012, the
Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit.

In March 2013, the court issued an opinion granting the motion in
part, finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to seek overtime
based upon use of the "fluctuating workweek" method prior to April
5, 2011, the date of a U.S. Department of Labor Final Rule ("Final
Rule") addressing, among other things, proposed changes to the
federal "fluctuating workweek" regulation. The court also
dismissed one of the named plaintiffs.

Following the court's decision, the Company filed a Motion to
Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay the Action, which
the court granted in August 2013. Shortly thereafter, the Company
filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was granted. The appeal has
been fully briefed and oral argument was scheduled for December 4,
2014.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Parties in NY Suit Await Appeals Court Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2014, that parties in a New
York class action are now awaiting a decision by the Court of
Appeals.

In April 2013, plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey
filed similar lawsuits, alleging violations of their respective
state laws. In June 2013, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss in
the New York and New Jersey cases. In November 2013, the court in
the New York case granted the Motion to Dismiss.

In December 2013, the plaintiff in the New York case filed a
notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The
appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument was heard on
October 24, 2014. The parties are now awaiting a decision by the
Court of Appeals.

In April 2014, the plaintiff in the New Jersey case voluntarily
dismissed the case and filed an opt in notice in the Ohio case.

In September 2013, the court in the Pennsylvania case ordered the
parties to file briefs addressing whether use of the "fluctuating
workweek" method violates Pennsylvania law. The plaintiff filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment and the Company filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. In July 2014, the court issued an
opinion granting plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and
denying the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In
November 2014, the parties reached a tentative settlement, subject
to notice to the putative class and approval by the court.

The outcome of these cases is uncertain and the ultimate
resolution of them could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial statements in the period in which
the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces "Singh" and "Snyder" Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2014, that the Company is
facing the Singh v. RadioShack; Snyder v. RadioShack class
actions.

On November 26, 2014, Manoj Singh filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, its Board of Directors, the
RadioShack 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee, and related
entities and individuals in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")
in connection with the administration of the RadioShack 401(k)
Plan and the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan, specifically
with regard to investment by these plans in Company stock.

On December 5, 2014, Jeffrey Snyder filed a similar lawsuit in the
same court.

The Company is reviewing the allegations in the Complaints to
determine how to proceed.  The outcome of these cases is uncertain
and the ultimate resolution of them could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the
period in which the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Suit Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Radioshack Corporation said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12,
2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act Litigation were resolved in 2013 and no
further actions are necessary.

The Company said, "In November 2010 we were named as a defendant
in the first of four putative class action lawsuits filed in
California alleging violations under California's Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act. These lawsuits were resolved in 2013 and no
further actions are necessary. The resolution to these matters did
not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements."


RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Approved Settlement in FACTA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radioshack Corporation said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12,
2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the court
signed an order approving the settlement in the FACTA Litigation.

The Company said, "In September 2011 and November 2011, we were
named as a defendant in nationwide putative class action lawsuits
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging that we violated certain provisions of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") by
displaying the expiration dates of customers' credit or debit
cards on printed transaction receipts. In May 2013, the parties
reached a settlement and on May 29, 2013, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice of the settlement
was mailed to known class members and published in several
national publications. A hearing on final approval of the
settlement was held on September 17, 2013."

"On February 7, 2014, the court signed an order approving the
settlement. The outcome of this matter did not have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements in the
period in which the resolution is recorded."


RCI HOSPITALITY: Trial This Year on Pending Issues in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (formerly Rick's Cabaret
International, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the Court has indicated
that the issues remaining in a class action lawsuit will be
scheduled for trial in 2015.

The Company and subsidiaries RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc.
("RCI NY") and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. ("Peregrine") have been
defendants in a federal court collective and class action, pending
since March 30, 2009, in the Southern District of New York
relating to wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Company, RCI NY
and Peregrine deny liability in this matter, are vigorously
defending the allegations and have asserted counterclaims and
affirmative defenses for offset and unjust enrichment. Discovery
has been completed.

On September 10, 2013, the court ruled on the parties' motions for
summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Plaintiffs on liability on their causes of action for minimum
wage under the FLSA and NYLL and held that entertainers at Rick's
NY are employees.  The court further held that Peregrine was an
employer of the Plaintiffs and that under federal law, Rick's NY's
statutory duty to pay minimum wages was not satisfied by the
performance fees Plaintiffs' received.   The court denied the
Plaintiffs' attempt to hold the Company or RCI NY liable as joint
employers with Peregrine and the issue of whether the Company and
RCI NY are also employers will be determined at a trial.

On November 18, 2013, the court set the class end date as October
31, 2012 and granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
Claim Five of their complaint, holding that the Club's fines fees
and tip-out requirements violated New York State law.

On November 14, 2014, following motion practice by the parties,
the court issued an order holding that: (a) under New York law,
the performance fees paid by Plaintiffs do not offset Defendants'
minimum wage obligations; (b) holding Peregrine liable on Claim
Four of the Complaint; (c) denying Defendants' motion to strike
the reports and testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witness; (d)
denying Defendants' motion to decertify the Rule 23 class; (e)
granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to
damages on Claim One and Two of the Complaint (for minimum wage
under the FLSA and the NYLL) in the amount of $10,866,035 and
granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to damages on
Claim Four of the Complaint but finding that an issue of fact
exists as to whether Plaintiff's were actually required to pay
certain "tip outs" and thus denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on that issue.

The Court has indicated that the issues remaining in the action
will be scheduled for trial in 2015.   Ultimately, the Company,
RCI NY and Peregrine intend to appeal the aforementioned rulings,
including seeking the court's permission to appeal certain issues
immediately rather than after trial.


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Class Member Files Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11,
2014, for the quarterly period ended November 1 30, 2014, that a
class member filed a notice of appeal from a court judgment
granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the
Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971
by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with
credit cards.

On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the
parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon
claims process for the class members as well as to other matters
related to this proceeding. As a result of these developments, the
Company recorded a $9.5 million charge related to this matter
during the nine months ended November 1, 2014.

On September 5, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in
fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered
judgment on September 29, 2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class
member filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Faces "Ding" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wei Ding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Paul G. Thomas, and Steven T.
Sobieski, Case No. 3:14-cv-08020 (D.N.J., December 24, 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.

Roka Bioscience, Inc. is a molecular diagnostics company which
creates technologies to detect foodborne pathogens.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 313-1887
      Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Faces Two Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Amendment
No. 1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 16, 2014, for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, that
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. faces two securities class
action lawsuit.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York. On October 6, 2014, another purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas and was subsequently removed to United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas. Both lawsuits were
filed against Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., certain
current and former SCUSA directors and executive officers and
certain institutions that served as underwriters in the IPO. Each
lawsuit was brought by a purported stockholder of SCUSA seeking to
represent a class consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired SCUSA's securities pursuant and/or traceable to
SCUSA's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with the IPO. Each complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus contained misleading statements
concerning SCUSA's auto lending business and underwriting
practices. Each lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages and
other relief.


SEMILEDS CORPORATION: Court Okayed Notice of Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
SemiLEDs Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, that the Court signed the
notice of dismissal of the SemiLEDs Corporation Litigation, and
the case was closed.

The Company said, "On July 10, 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us and certain of our
current and former officers and directors, styled as Huard v.
SemiLEDs Corporation, et al., alleging violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws. On July 31, 2013, a second investor filed
a complaint, styled as Mohammad v. SemiLEDs Corporation, et al."

"On September 30, 2013, the Court appointed Mohammad Yasir as lead
plaintiff and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as
lead counsel. On November 15, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed its
Amended Complaint, styled as In re SemiLEDs Corporation
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-04776-DLC (S.D.N.Y.). The
Amended Complaint alleged one count of violation of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and one count of violation of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, both arising out of alleged misstatements made
by us and certain of our current and former officers and directors
in connection with our initial public offering and our results in
the first, second, and third quarter of 2011.

"On February 20, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action. On February 21, 2014, the Court signed
the notice of dismissal and the case was closed. There were no
material pending legal proceedings and claims as of August 31,
2014.


SHOE CARNIVAL: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Shoe Carnival, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered an order affirming a
district court order dismissing a class action complaint and the
plaintiff has not sought reconsideration or rehearing from the
Seventh Circuit.

The Company said, "On October 31, 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (the "District Court")
captioned Nicaj v. Shoe Carnival, Inc. The complaint alleged that
we violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), which amended the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, by printing the month of the expiration date of our
customers' credit cards on transaction receipts. The plaintiff
sought, among other things, the designation of this action as a
class action, an award of monetary damages of between $100 and
$1,000 per violation, counsel fees and costs, and such other
relief as the court deemed appropriate."

"On January 16, 2014, the District Court granted our motion and
dismissed the plaintiff's action with prejudice and denied his
motion to certify a class as moot, finding that our actions did
not violate FACTA and that our conduct, even if it did violate
FACTA, was not willful. On February 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2014, the Seventh Circuit
entered an order affirming the District Court's order.  The
plaintiff has not sought reconsideration or rehearing from the
Seventh Circuit."


SUPRIME CAR: "Vazquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Vazquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Suprime Car Care, Inc., Sonic Momentum B, L.P. d/b/a Momentum
BMW, and Sonic Of Texas, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03677 (S.D. Tex.,
December 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Suprime Car Care, Inc. provides staffing services to Momentum BMW.

Sonic Momentum B, L.P. is a new and used BMW dealership located in
Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Blake Gross, Esq.
      GROSS LAW FIRM, PLLC
      10931 Prairie Hawk
      Houston, TX 77064
      Telephone: (832) 260-0708
      Facsimile: (832) 413-4962
      E-mail: ryangross@grosslaw.info


TDC DOORS: Faces "Xichotencatl" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reymundo Xichotencatl and Rodrigo Romero, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. TDC Doors Inc., (d/b/a T
Doors [Previously TDC Doors]), Hong Jiang, and Raymond Jiang, Case
No. 1:14-cv-07474 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 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 company that makes and
distributes doors located at 946 Third Avenue, Brooklyn, New York
11232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


THREE AMIGOS: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yadira Guzman and Daniris Espinal, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Three Amigos SJL Inc., Three Amigos
SJL Rest., Inc., Times Square Restaurant No. 1, Inc., Times Square
Restaurant Group, Ltd., Selim "Sam" Zherka, and Dominica O'neill,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10120 (S.D.N.Y., December 24, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult club located at 252 West
43rd Street, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375

         - and -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000


TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Illegally Applies Interest Rate, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mona Rogers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Transamerica Premier Life Insurance Company and Does 1
through 100 inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-02618 (C.D. Cal., December
23, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's unfair and unlawful
business practice of applying an improper interest rate to
compensate for the delay in making the death benefit payments to
life-insurance beneficiaries.

Transamerica Premier Life Insurance Company is authorized to
transact and is transacting the business of insurance in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William M. Shernoff, Esq.
      Travis M. Corby, Esq.
      SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP
      600 S. Indian Hill Boulevard
      Claremont, CA 91711
      Telephone: (909) 621-4935
      Facsimile: (909) 447-2043
      E-mail: wshernoff@shernoff.com
              tcorby@shernoff.com

         - and -

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      Tonna K. Farrar, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
      2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199


TREES R US: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Gonzalez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trees R Us, Inc. and Tracey Recenello, Case
No. 2:14-cv-07487 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Trees R Us, Inc. has performed work for the City of New York
Department of Parks and Recreation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
      NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 214
      Westbury, NY 11590
      Telephone: (516) 228-5100
      Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
      E-mail: ngreenberg@nhglaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Service Advertisements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Philliben, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and Byron McKnight, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, and Rasier, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-05615 (N.D. Cal., December 23,
2014), alleges that the Defendant made false and misleading
representations on its website and other marketing materials that
it conducts industry leading background checks on its drivers and
that its service is safer than a taxi, when in fact its background
check procedures and safety measures are woefully inadequate and
fall well short of what is required for other commercial providers
of transportation.

Uber Technologies, Inc. provides a smartphone application that
establishes a platform for consumers to obtain transportation
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mike Arias, Esq.
      Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
      ARIAS, OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP
      6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90045-7504
      Telephone:  (310) 670-1600
      Facsimile: (310) 670-1231
      E-mail: marias@aogllp.com
              atorrijos@aogllp.com

         - and -

      Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
      Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
      LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
      975 E. Jefferson Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48207
      Telephone: (313) 392-0015
      Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
      E-mail: sliddle@mldclassaction.com
              ncoulson@mldclassaction.com


UBS-CITIGROUP: DBTCA Faces Class Action Over Role as Trustee
------------------------------------------------------------
UBS-Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2011-C1 said in its Form
10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 16, 2014, that Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
("DBTCA") has been named as a defendant in civil litigation
concerning its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors ("Plaintiff Investors")
filed a civil action against DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New York State Supreme Court
purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label
RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty and negligence based on DBTCA's and DBNTC's alleged failure
to perform their obligations as trustees for the trusts (the "NY
Derivative Action").  An amended complaint was filed on July 16,
2014, adding Plaintiff Investors and RMBS trusts to the NY
Derivative Action.  On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff Investors
moved to voluntarily dismiss the NY Derivative Action without
prejudice.

Also on November 24, 2014, substantially the same group of
Plaintiff Investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and DBNTC
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "SDNY Action"), making substantially the same
allegations as the New York Derivative Action with respect to 564
RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue in the NY Derivative
Action).

The SDNY Action is styled both as a derivative action on behalf of
the named RMBS Trusts and, in the alternative, as a putative class
action on behalf of holders of RMBS representing interests in
those RMBS trusts.  DBTCA is reviewing these newly-filed
pleadings.


URS PROFESSIONAL: 4th Cir. Affirms Decision in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger Gregory of the United States Court of Appeals of the
Fourth Circuit affirms the decision of a district court in the
appellate case entitled NOORALI SAM SAVANI, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated; ROBERT P. TAYLOR, JR.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. URS PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, f/k/a
Westinghouse Safety Management Solutions, LLC, f/k/a Washington
Safety Management Solutions, LLC; URS PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS
PENSION PLAN, f/k/a Washington Safety Management Solutions, LLC
Pension Plan, f/k/a WSMS Pension Plan; URS ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION,
INC., f/k/a Washington Group International, Inc.; ROGER ALLEN, as
Trustee and Member of the Benefits now Administrative Committee of
URS Professional Solutions Pension Plan; JULIE TSCHIDA BROWN, as
Trustee and Member of the Benefits now Administrative Committee of
URS Professional Solutions Pension Plan; DAVE HOLLAN, as Trustee
and Member of the Benefits now Administrative Committee of URS
Professional Solutions Pension Plan; DELOYD CAZIER, as Trustee and
Member of the Benefits now Administrative Committee of URS
Professional Solutions Pension Plan, Defendants-Appellants, and
WASHINGTON SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, LLC, f/k/a Westinghouse
Savannah River Company, LLC; WESTINGHOUSE SAFETY MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC PENSION PLAN; PAUL HARPER, as Trustee and Member of
the Benefits now Administrative Committee of URS Professional
Solutions Pension Plan; LEO SAIN, as Trustee of Westinghouse
Safety Management Solutions, LLC Pension Plan; PRES RAHE, as
Trustee of Westinghouse Safety Management Solutions, LLC Pension
Plan; WASHINGTON SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY'S PENSION PLAN; RALPH
DISIBIO, as director of Washington Safety Management Solution,
LLC; PAUL GREFENSTETTE, as Director of Washington Safety
Management Solutions, LLC; ROBERT PEDDE, as Director of Washington
Safety Management Solutions, LLC; AMBROSE SCHWALLIE, as Director
of Washington Safety Management Solutions, LLC; WSMS PENSION PLAN,
f/k/a Westinghouse Savannah River Company-Bechtel Savannah River
Inc Pension Plan, f/k/a Westinghouse Safety Management Solutions,
LLC Pension Plan, f/k/a Washington Safety Management Solutions,
LLC Pension Plan; WASHINGTON SAFETY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC;
WASHINGTON SAFETY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC PENSION PLAN;
WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants., No. 13-2512
(4th Cir.)

Washington Safety Management Solutions, LLC (WSMS) had a
retirement plan for its employees and this plan was amended in
2004 and 2006 but the latter amendment has its affectivity on
2005.

Noorali Savani filed a class action under the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), citing Section 502
(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132 (a)(1))(B)(2006), claiming that
Washington Safety Management Solutions, LLC's (WSMS) termination
of an early retirement pension supplement violated ERISA's anti-
cutback provision. Savani challenged the eliminated Section
4.12(a) of the retirement plan which contains the provision on
Supplemental benefits.

The District Court favors Savani in which WSMS appealed. During
the first appeal, Savani successfully challenge the 2004
elimination of Section 4.12(a) as a violation of ERISA anti-
cutback provision. Upon remand, the district court certified
Savani's case as class action and Savani is the lead plaintiff for
the class. During the course of the district court proceedings,
WSMS opposed paying certain members of the above class who after
December 31, 2005 have or may have become eligible for Section
4.12(a) WSMS Plan benefits as related to freeze of benefits as of
December 31, 2005. The appellees therefore moved to add Robert
Taylor as a party and subclass representative, and the district
court granted the motion. Thus, Taylor is the lead plaintiff of
the subclass, which is defined as "All members of the Class
defined above who, as of December 21, 2005, either (1) did not
have 15 total years of service with WSMS or an Affiliated Employer
as defined in Section 1.02 of the Plan, or (2) was not 50 years of
age, or (3) did not meet the 25 years of service and age 45 but
less than 50 years of age requirements for an Optional Retirement
Pension as defined in Section 4.04 of the WSMS Plan.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue
of whether the 2005 Amendment resulted in the lawful elimination
of the Section 4.12(a) benefit for Taylor and the members of the
subclass. In considering the parties' motions, the district court
observed that the 2005 Amendment permitted Plan members to
continue to earn Eligibility Service years in order to determine
the members' eligibility for certain benefits and eligibility for
a vested Pension. In light of the unambiguous language of the 2005
Amendment, as well as the Fourth Circuit's prior holding that the
elimination of the Section 4.12(a) supplement violated ERISA's
anti-cutback provision, the district court granted summary
judgment in favor of Taylor and the subclass members and held that
they are entitled to receive the supplement.

WSMS subsequently filed a motion to remand the matter to the
Plan's benefits committee, or in the alternative, for the district
court to reconsider its summary judgment ruling. The district
court denied the motion to reconsider, reasoning that it had
interpreted unambiguous Plan language, and that remand would be
futile because a different interpretation of this clear language
would be an abuse of the committee's discretion.

WSMS appealed.

The Fourth Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court,
holding that the Plan's clear terms include the Section 4.12(a)
supplement in the definition of "accrued benefits". Taylor and the
subclass members are entitled to receive the benefits as long as
they satisfy the age and service requirements if and when they
elect early retirement.

A copy of Judge Gregory's unpublished opinion dated November 17,
2014 is available at http://is.gd/2Ci45efrom Leagle.com

Appellants are represented by H. Douglas Hinson --
doug.hinson@alston.com -- and Emily S. Costin --
emily.costin@alston.com -- at ALSTON & BIRD, LLP; and Gray T.
Culbreath -- gculbreath@gwblawfirm.com -- at GALLIVAN, WHITE &
BOYD, P.A.

Appellees are represented by Stanley G. Jackson --
Stan@StanJackson.com -- at JACKSON LAW OFFICES

The Fourth Circuit panel consists of Judges Roger Gregory, James
Harvie Wilkinson III and Barbara Milano Keenan.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Dismissed Securities Litigation Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Annual Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order and mandate,
dismissing the appeal with prejudice related to the VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On or after December 4, 2007, several
securities class action complaints were filed against us and
certain of our officers, former officers, and a former director.
These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California and are currently captioned as
In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140
EMC. The original actions were: Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6140 EMC; Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C
08-0118 CW."

"On August 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National
Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel. Lead
plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on
October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability against us and
certain of our current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or
misleading public statements regarding our business and operations
during the putative class periods, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. We filed our motion to dismiss on
December 31, 2008.

"The court granted our motion on May 26, 2009 and dismissed the
consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend
within 30 days of the ruling. The proceedings were stayed pending
a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed
to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Lead plaintiff's first
amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009 followed by a
second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the
hearing on our motion was held on May 17, 2010. In July 2010,
prior to any court ruling on our motion, lead plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on the basis
that it had newly obtained evidence. Pursuant to a briefing
schedule issued by the court we submitted our motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint and lead plaintiff filed its
opposition, following which the court took the matter under
submission without further hearing.

"On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in our favor and dismissed the
consolidated securities class action without leave to amend. On
April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the
district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead plaintiff dismissed
its appeal as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson,
and Craig Bondy. Lead plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal
on July 28, 2011. We filed our answering brief on September 28,
2011 and lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on October 31, 2011.

"A hearing on oral arguments for this appeal was held before a
judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012. On December
21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing the
district court's dismissal of the consolidated shareholder
securities class action against us and certain of our officers and
directors, with the exception of the dismissal of lead plaintiff's
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, which
the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

"On January 4, 2013, we filed a petition for en banc rehearing
with the Ninth Circuit. On January 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing. On February 8, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit issued a mandate returning this case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California for further
proceeding on lead plaintiff's claims, except for the dismissed
Section 20(a) claim.

"On August 9, 2013, we entered into a stipulation of settlement in
this consolidated shareholder securities class action with and
among the other defendants and the lead plaintiff therein. The
settlement was subject to various customary conditions, including
preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, notice to class members, class member opt-
out thresholds and final approval by the court.

"Upon the settlement becoming final, the total settlement
consideration paid for the benefit of the settlement class would
be $95.0 million, plus a potential contingent adjustment if we had
been acquired on or before April 15, 2014. We have coverage from
our insurance carriers for this settlement consideration in the
amount of approximately $33.8 million. The net amount of
approximately $61.2 million (excluding the contingent adjustment)
would be paid by us.

"On October 15, 2013, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. On November 5, 2013, we deposited
approximately $61.2 million, and our insurance carriers have
deposited the remaining portion, of the $95.0 million settlement
consideration into an escrow account for the settlement. The
hearing on final approval of the settlement was held on February
14, 2014.

"On February 18, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
parties' motion for settlement, and indicated that it intended to
issue a final approval of the settlement, subject to the lead
plaintiff's submission of a notice plan regarding Israeli
investors that includes (i) a longer time period for Israeli class
members to file their claims and (ii) the dissemination to Israeli
investors of a Hebrew language version of the notice of the
proposed settlement, proof of claim and release form (the "Hebrew-
Language Notice"). On February 20, 2014, in response to the
court's order, the lead plaintiff filed a proposed notice plan
that included (i) an extension of the time period for Israeli
class members to file claims to April 30, 2014, (ii) a plan to
mail the Hebrew-Language Notice to Israeli investors, (iii) a plan
to publish the Hebrew-Language Notice in a leading newspaper in
Israel, and (iv) a revision to the claims website to post the
Hebrew-Language Notice and make clear that the claims deadline for
Israeli class members has been extended to April 30, 2014. On
February 25, 2014, the court issued a final order approving the
settlement, dismissing the case with prejudice and entering
judgment in the action.

"One of the objectors to the settlement filed a notice of appeal
to the court's February 25, 2014 judgment and orders, but
subsequently filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal
with prejudice. On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued an order and mandate, dismissing the appeal
with prejudice.

"We have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims
alleged in the consolidated shareholder securities class action.
Nonetheless, we have agreed to the settlement to eliminate the
uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further
litigation. This settlement also applies to members of the
putative class of plaintiffs in the Israel class action described
below under U.S. law."


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling in Israel Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Annual Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the Company is
currently awaiting the court's determination concerning whether
the Israel class action should proceed in light of the settlement
in the U.S. class action.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint
was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv,
Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action,
in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States, on
March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008.
Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with
regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on
June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court
ruled in our favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in
determining our liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to
the Israeli Supreme Court.

"Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January
18, 2009. The Israeli District Court has stayed its proceedings
until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal.

"On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme
Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court.
The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to
rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the
assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the
Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable
law.

"Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12,
2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending
resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's
decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme
Court. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli
Supreme Court. In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to
the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561
U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the
appeal currently pending before the Court and requesting that this
authority be added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently
filed an application with the Israeli District Court asking that
court to reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S.
law to the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision
to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action
in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

"On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The
Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in
the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S.
class action.  On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended
application for leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District
Court's ruling. We filed an amended response on December 28, 2011.

"On January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered
consideration of the application by three justices. On July 2,
2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated
notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities
class action then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, we filed an
updated status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the
proceedings in the U.S. securities class action pending at the
time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further
hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and
confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the
federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the
Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to
the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February
4, 2013. The plaintiff and putative class members in this action
are included in the stipulated settlement of the federal
securities class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., disclosed
above unless an individual plaintiff opts out.

"Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S.
court, in April 2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed
a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the
proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of the
applicable law. A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning
whether the Israel class action should proceed in light of the
settlement in the U.S. class action. On June 29, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the court's request. We
filed our reply pleading on August 19, 2014, and plaintiff filed a
further response pleading on September 4, 2014. We are currently
awaiting the court's determination."


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: April 3 Hearing on Bid to Nix Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Annual Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that a court has set a
hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss the VeriFone Securities
Litigation on April 3, 2015.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against us certain of our former officers
and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection
with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action,
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-
1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities
Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were
based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding our business,
operations, and financial controls during the putative class
period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. Two additional class actions related to the same
matter (Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc.
et al., Case No. CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV 13-1853) were filed in April 2013. On May 6,
2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed
motions to consolidate these three securities class actions and
requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel,
respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds
v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v. VeriFone Systems,
Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their respective actions,
without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July 17, 2013,
respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in
the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc.
et al."

"On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the
Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended
complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended
complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011
and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer
who was named in the original complaint from the action. We filed
our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 14, 2014,
lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014 and we
filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court took
the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument. On
August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with
leave to amend. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on October 7, 2014. We filed our motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on December 8, 2014. Lead plaintiffs'
opposition is due on February 6, 2015, and our reply is due on
March 10, 2015. The court has set a hearing on our motion to
dismiss on April 3, 2015."


VIATOR INC: Settlement Has Initial OK; March 25 Final Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California
granted the parties request for preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement, and conditionally certifies the class in the
case, ROSALINA C. RELENTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIATOR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-05868-JD (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Rosalina Relente, later joined by a co-plaintiff, Travis
Anderson, alleged that Viator listed some tours with strike-
through prices, a superseded price with a line through it, thereby
misleading consumers about the extent to which the sale price was
discounted. Plaintiffs' claims were brought on behalf of
themselves as well as a putative class consisting of all persons
who have purchased a tour from Viator. The propose class consists
of " all persons who purchased a Viator tour worldwide using a
California billing address from October 16, 2008 through June 7,
2014 when a Strikethrough Price was displayed with no Special
Offer Text".

Under the terms of the settlement, Viator will be subject to a
permanent injunction requiring it to include a description of the
basis for a strike-through price whenever it lists one on its
website or apps. In addition, the settlement provides for a
$515,000 settlement fund, to be divided between the class members
based on how much they paid for their tour. Viator's records
suggest that there are about 16,645 consumers in the proposed
class, meaning that the settlement works out to an average of
$30.94 per class member.

In granting preliminary approval to settlement and conditionally
certifying the class, Judge Donato issued the following case
schedules:

     Event Recommended Deadline Individual class notice emailed
     and publication notice 12/18/14 through website

     Last day for class members to mail requests for exclusion
     2/9/15

     Last day for class members to file objections 2/9/15

     Class counsel to file petition for award of attorneys'
     2/18/15 fees and reimbursement of expenses

     Viator to file opposition to class counsel's request 3/4/15
     for award of attorneys' fees and costs

     Class counsel to file reply in support of award for 3/11/15
     attorneys' fees

     Parties to file joint motion for final approval of
     settlement 3/11/15

     Filing deadline for responses to objections 3/11/15

     Last date for notices of intention to appear to be received
     3/11/15

     Viator to file declaration that notice plan was carried out
     3/18/15

     Final approval hearing 3/25/15 at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of Judge Donato's order dated November 14, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/KQxzWkfrom Leagle.com.

Rosalina C. Relente and Travis R. Anderson, Plaintiffs,
represented by James Mitchel Sitkin -- jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com --
at Dacey & Sitkin; Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com -- and
Michael Francis Ram -- mram@ramolson.com -- at Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP

Viator, Inc., Defendant, represented by Colette M. Coles --
ccoles@mofo.com -- Rebekah E. Kaufman -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- and
Wesley Ellsworth Overson, Jr. -- woverson@mofo.com -- at Morrison
& Foerster LLP


WAL-MART STORES: Considers Petition for Supreme Court Review
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2014, that the
Company is considering its next course of action, including
pursuing a petition for review by the United States Supreme Court
with respect to the case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (the "Company") is
a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (the "Company") is a defendant in
Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a class-action lawsuit
commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as previously disclosed in periodic
filings by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay
class members for all hours worked and prevented class members
from taking their full meal and rest breaks.

On December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an
opinion which largely upholds the judgment that was entered
against the Company in that case in 2007, in the approximate
amount of $188 million.

As reported in the Company's previous periodic filings, the 2007
judgment included an award of back-pay plus statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees, and prejudgment interest.  As also reported, the
Company appealed that judgment, and on June 10, 2011, the
Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the
judgment dealing with the award of attorneys' fees, but otherwise
affirmed. The Company appealed that decision to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court, resulting in yesterday's ruling affirming the
decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals. By
operation of law, post-judgment interest accrues on the judgment
amount at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of entry
of the judgment, which was November 14, 2007, until the judgment
is paid, unless the judgment is set aside on appeal.

The Company is considering its next course of action, including
pursuing a petition for review by the United States Supreme Court.
While the Company is in the process of reviewing and assessing
this decision and its next course of action, it currently
estimates that the charges related to this matter will be
approximately $0.06 of diluted earnings per share from continuing
operations ("EPS") in the Company's fiscal 2015 fourth quarter.
This estimated impact is not in the Company's fiscal 2015 fourth
quarter EPS guidance or fiscal 2015 full year EPS guidance, both
of which items were furnished in the Company's fiscal 2015 third
quarter earnings release on November 13, 2014.


WARNER MUSIC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Jan. 8
---------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that the hearing on
final approval of the settlement in the Music Download Putative
Class Action Suits is scheduled for January 8, 2015.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California
between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which
were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the
Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for
certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording
contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on
their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of
other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on
a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had
breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case
through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording
artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of
the major record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to have
the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to
their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable
response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be
appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel
moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order,
the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead
class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint
on August 21, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. On January 23, 2014, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. As part of
the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million
(less attorneys' fees, costs, and costs of claims administration
and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of
downloads and ringtones. Plaintiffs filed their motion for final
approval of the Settlement Agreement on November 26, 2014. The
hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
January 8, 2015.

Based on an evaluation of potential outcomes of these claims that
are reasonably possible and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss possible, the Company has recorded what it
believes is an appropriate reserve related to these cases, which
amount is not material.


WARNER MUSIC: Reply Date on Class Cert. Brief Not Yet Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a
class action over the pricing of digital music downloads filed a
class certification brief and the Company's reply date has not yet
been set.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us
with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information
relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both
investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However,
on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of
the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings
and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants'
petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in
part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the
CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide
variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
internet download purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative
consolidated amended complaint on August 31, 2011.

Pursuant to the terms of an August 15, 2011 stipulation and order,
the case is currently in discovery. Disputes regarding the scope
of discovery are ongoing. Plaintiffs filed a Class Certification
brief on March 14, 2014. The Company's reply date has not yet been
set.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of
the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could
continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of
management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are
reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
presently be made.


WATTS WATER: Faces "Meyers" Suit Over Defective Supply Lines
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Meyers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02729
(S.D. Ohio, December 23, 2014), arises out of the poor material
selection and a defective design of the Defendant's flexible
braided stainless steel water supply lines.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is a supplier of products for use
in the water quality, water safety, water flow control and water
conservation markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Drew Legando, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, Ohio 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
              drew@lgmlegal.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
             gabramson@bm.net
             josterwise@bm.net

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      Bank of America Center
      550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com


WEST MARINE: Court Denies Preliminary OK of Deal in "Taylor" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the joint motion for preliminary
approval of a proposed class settlement in the action styled KAREN
TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and PAULISA FIELDS, Plaintiffs, v. WEST MARINE PRODUCTS,
INC., Defendant, NO. C 13-04916 WHA (N.D. Calif.).

Plaintiffs Karen Taylor and Paulisa Fields are former hourly
employees who worked for West Marine Products, Inc., a national
boating-supply retailer, at its Santa Barbara facilities.  The
Plaintiffs asserted several claims relating to the defendant's
alleged failure to provide sufficient rest and meal breaks,
failing to pay overtime wages, and providing employees with
inaccurate wage statements.

Under the settlement, all claims relating to a failure to include
spiff awards in the calculation of overtime pay (not just daily
overtime pay) of putative class members would be completely
extinguished and replaced by an unclear claims procedure.  Of the
$435,000 proposed settlement, class counsel requests $160,500 in
attorney's fees and expenses.  In addition to their own shares of
the settlement, $10,000 total would be paid to the two named
plaintiffs as "incentive payments."  Costs of administration in
the amount of $15,000 would also be deducted.

Judge Alsup denied preliminary approval of the settlement after
finding that the proposed settlement has three main problems: (1)
the scope of the release is too broad; (2) the proposed incentive
payments for named plaintiffs are unwarranted; and (3) the
proposed claims procedure is incomprehensible from the settlement
agreement and the parties' brief.  Judge Alsup held that if the
parties address the foregoing concerns, the Court will consider
preliminary approving an amended settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/1SbERBfrom Leagle.com.

Karen Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by David Covington Garrett,
Esq. -- dgarrett@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble, Donald
Ross Pepperman, Esq., at Blecher & Collins, Priya Mohan, Esq. --
pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble & Alan Dale Harris,
Esq. -- HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- at Harris & Ruble.

Paulisa Fields, Plaintiff, represented by David Covington Garrett,
Harris and Ruble, Donald Ross Pepperman, Blecher & Collins, Priya
Mohan, Harris and Ruble & Alan Dale Harris, Harris & Ruble.

West Marine Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley
Michelle Farrell, Esq. -- farrella@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG,
LLP, Mark David Kemple, Esq. -- kemplem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, Bryan Joseph Lazarski, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
Karin Leeann Bohmholdt, Esq. -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig LLP & Michael Steven Lawrence, Esq., Greenberg Traurig,
LLP.


WESTMINSTER MINT: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss HPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the District of Minnesota
denied defendants' motion to dismiss the case, THOMAS J.
STYCZINSKI, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WESTMINSTER MINT, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No.
14-Cv-00619 (SRN/HB) (D. Minn.)

Plaintiff purchased both the Silver Eagle round and the Canadian
Timber Wolf round from Westminster's website. Sometime thereafter,
Plaintiff's credit card was charged by Defendant Bullion, and the
rounds were shipped from one of Bullion's facilities in Florida.
Plaintiff alleges that Westminster, Bullion, Clay, and Kott acted
in concert to manufacture, import, distribute, market, and sell
the American Silver Eagle round and the Canadian Timber Wolf round
in the State of Minnesota and throughout the United States in
violation of the Hobby Protection Act or HPA.  Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants have failed to comply with their obligations under
the HPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 2101 by unlawfully manufacturing,
importing, distributing, marketing, and/or selling "imitation
numismatic items" not appropriately marked "COPY," as required
under the HPA. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from engaging
in unlawful business practices and seeks monetary damages.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to
state a claim for which relief can be granted under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants assert that Plaintiff's
allegations do not support a claim for monetary damages because
Plaintiff's request for relief is not well-pleaded. Defendants
contend that Plaintiff has: (1) failed to describe with
specificity the monetary damages suffered; and alternatively, (2)
may receive less for rescission of the transaction than the value
of the silver coins at the spot silver price, thus invalidating
any legitimate claim of monetary loss.

Judge Nelson finds that neither argument warrants the dismissal of
Plaintiff's claim and denies defendants' motion to dismiss and
expresses that, Plaintiff requests specific relief in the
Complaint, seeking monetary damages resulting from the Defendants'
conduct, an injunctive order estopping Defendants from continued
violations of 15 U.S.C Sec. 2102(b), and reasonable attorney's
fees. Second, Defendants' alternative argument that any requested
rescission of the transaction would result in a greater loss to
Plaintiff due to the fluctuating value of silver is outside the
scope of a 12(b)(6) motion. Such an inquiry would require the
Court to look beyond the Complaint into areas that will almost
certainly be contested. These issues include the exact damages
incurred by Plaintiff and the proper method(s) used to calculate
such damages.

A copy of Judge Nelson's memorandum opinion and order dated
November 14, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/fwyt89from
Leagle.com.

Joseph A. Osefchen, Shane T. Prince, and Stephen P. DeNittis --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DeNittis Osefchen PC; and Steven
J. Ellison -- sellison@ellisonlawpllc.com -- at Ellison Law
Offices, for Plaintiff

Kelly W. Hoversten -- kelly.hoversten@gpmlaw.com -- and Craig P.
Miller -- craig.miller@gpmlaw.com -- at Gray Plant Mooty Mooty &
Bennett P, for Defendants


WILLBROS GROUP: Faces "Walters" Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
after the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 28, 2014
seeking class action status on behalf of the Company's
shareholders and alleging damages on their behalf arising from the
matters that led to the restatement. The defendants in the case,
Ray Walters v. Willbros Group, Inc. et al, are the Company and its
former chief executive officer and current chief financial
officer. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising
out of the restatement of the Company's second quarter 2014
financial statements and seeks undisclosed damages. The court has
not appointed a lead plaintiff, and the Company has not yet
answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. As this matter
is at a very early stage, the Company is not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: Judge Narrows "Fullwood" FACTA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of
New York denied defendant's motion to dismiss and granted
defendant's motion to strike in the case CYNTHIA M. FULLWOOD,
Plaintiff, v. WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE, INC., et al., Defendants.,
No. 13 CIV 7174 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff Cynthia M. Fullwood used her credit card after having a
meal at Defendant's place at Park Avenue. Plaintiff received an
electronically printed receipt displaying the last four digits of
her credit card number and the expiration date of the card.
Plaintiff sued Wolfgang's Steakhouse and ZMF Restuarants and
alleged violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act of 2003 or FACTA, by printing credit card receipts that
included the expiration date of customers' cards. Plaintiff made
an amendment to her complaint.

Defendants move to dismiss the case in its entirety pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff
has not plausibly alleged a willful violation of FACTA, and
alternatively to strike from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint all
class allegations concerning FACTA violations outside the five-
year period prior to the filing of the litigation.

Judge Failla denied defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice to re-file and granted defendants' motion to strike from
the class members whose claims arose prior to October 10, 2008.

Plaintiff was given leave to file the Proposed Complaint (with the
modification of the class) as a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint no later than December 1, 2014, and the parties were
ordered to appear for a conference on December 17 to discuss an
expedited briefing schedule in the event that Defendants wish to
re-file their motion to dismiss. Any deadlines to answer specified
by Rules 12 or 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are
stayed pending further Court order.

A copy of Judge Failla's opinion and order dated November 14, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/zMkhMEfrom Leagle.com.

Cynthia M. Fullwood, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget Veronica
Hamill, Esq., and Marvin Lawrence Frank, Esq., at Murray Frank
LLP; and:

     Peter Y Lee, Esq.
     LEE LLC
     557 Cranbury Rd
     East Brunswick, NJ 08816
     Tel: (732) 613-0500

Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc. and ZMF Restaurants LLC, Defendants,
represented by Eric Joseph Shimanoff, Esq. -- ejs@cll.com -- and
Joel Schmidt -- jks@cll.com -- at Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: PROFEMUR(R) Claims Accrual Was $16.8MM at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 17, 2014, that its accrual for PROFEMUR(R) Claims was
$16.8 million as of December 31, 2013.

The Company said, "In the third quarter of 2011, as a result of an
increase in the number and monetary amount of claims associated
with fractures of our long PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular necks
(PROFEMUR(R) Claims), management recorded a provision for current
and future claims associated with fractures of this product.
Future revisions in our estimates of the liability could
materially impact our results of operation and financial position.
We maintain insurance coverage that limits the severity of any
single claim as well as total amounts incurred per policy year,
and we believe our insurance coverage is adequate. We use the best
information available to us in determining the level of accrued
product liabilities, and we believe our accruals are adequate. Our
accrual for PROFEMUR(R) Claims was $16.8 million and $23.3 million
as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively."

"We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a
claims-made basis. As of December 31, 2012, our insurance
receivable related to PROFEMUR(R) Claims totaled $11.4 million,
reflecting management's estimate of the probable insurance
recovery of previous and future settlements and current spending
on legal defense. During 2013, we received a customary reservation
of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier
asserting that present and future claims related to fractures of
our PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck hip products and which
allege certain types of injury (Modular Neck Claims) would be
covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first
such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position
would be to place Modular Neck Claims into a single prior policy
year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available,
subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. During 2013,
we received payment from the primary insurance carrier and the
next insurance carrier in the tower, totaling $15 million.

"As of December 31, 2013, our insurance receivable related to
Modular Neck Claims totaled $25 million, which consists of $12
million probable recovery for cash spending associated with
defense and settlement costs and $13 million associated with the
probable recovery of our recorded liability for current and future
Modular Neck Claims outstanding, reflecting in total the remaining
amount of insurance in this policy year.

"Our accrual for other product liability claims was $0.7 million
and $0.6 million at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively."


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Cases Over CONSERVE(R) Exceed 700
-------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 17, 2014, that the number of lawsuits related to the
Company's metal-on-metal hip products (primarily its CONSERVE(R)
product line) is presently in excess of 700 and continues to
increase.

The Company said, "Claims for personal injury have been made
against us associated with our metal-on-metal hip products
(primarily our CONSERVE(R) product line). The pre-trial management
of certain of these claims has been consolidated in the federal
court system under multi-district litigation, and certain other
claims in state courts in California, collectively the
"Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims."  The number of these
lawsuits, presently in excess of 700, continues to increase, we
believe due to the increasing negative publicity in the industry
regarding metal-on-metal hip products. We believe we have data
that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip
products. While continuing to dispute liability, we recently
agreed to participate in court supervised non-binding mediation in
the multi-district federal court litigation (MDL) presently
pending in the Northern District of Georgia."

"Every metal-on-metal hip case involves fundamental issues of
science and medicine that often are uncertain, that continue to
evolve, and which present contested facts and issues that can
differ significantly from case to case. Such contested facts and
issues include medical causation, individual patient
characteristics, surgery specific factors, and the existence of
actual, provable injury. Given these complexities, we are unable
to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible losses
for the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims until we know, at a
minimum, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion
practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any
potential pool of potential claimants, particularly when damages
are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery
process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of
the other parties to the litigation and (iv) any other factors
that may have a material effect on the litigation or on a party's
litigation strategy. By way of example and without limitation,
although we believe a significant number of claimants have not
required hip revision surgery, we do not yet know how many of such
cases exist within our claimant pool.

"We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a
claims-made basis. During the quarter ended September 30, 2012, we
received a customary reservation of rights from our primary
product liability insurance carrier asserting that certain present
and future claims which allege certain types of injury related to
our CONSERVE(R) metal-on-metal hip products (CONSERVE(R) Claims)
would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the
first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage
position would be to place CONSERVE(R) Claims into a single prior
policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was
available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect.
Management agrees that there is insurance coverage for the
CONSERVE(R) Claims, but has notified the carrier that at this time
it disputes the carrier's selection of available policy years and
its characterization of the CONSERVE(R) Claims as a single
occurrence."


ZOLMAN TIRE: Accord Has Initial Okay; April 15 Final Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon E. Deguilio of the Northern District of Indiana
granted (i) conditional certification of the class and (ii)
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in the case of
THOMAS REAMER on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZOLMAN TIRE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:14-CV-1601 JD (N.D. Ind.).

Thomas Reamer filed a class action suit against Zolman Tire, Inc.
to recover monetary damages on behalf of all current and former
employees of Zolman an automotive repair, tire and wheel retailer
in Indiana and Michigan, who have had sums deducted from their
wages for uniform rental or cleaning between May 6, 2012 and May
31, 2014 in violation of Indiana's Wage Payment Statute, Ind. Code
Section 22-2-5 et seq. and Wage Deduction Statute, Ind. Code
Section 22-2-6 et seq.  Reamer also stands to recover on his
individual claim under the same statutes for deductions taken from
his wages by Zolman for training costs and on his individual claim
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for Zolman's failure
to pay Reamer certain overtime wages.

In his Opinion and Order dated November 13, 2014, which is
available at http://is.gd/EHlAkDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Deguilio
ruled that:

     (1) The representations, agreements, terms, and conditions of
the parties' Proposed Settlement, as embodied in the Settlement
Agreement and Exhibit 1, are preliminarily approved pending a
final hearing on the Proposed Settlement.

     (2) For purposes of the Proposed Settlement only, the Court
preliminarily certifies a plaintiff class, pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 23(b)(3), as follows:

"Any individual employed in the State of Indiana by Zolman during
any portion of the Claims Period (from and including May 6, 2012
through and including May 31, 2014) who had monies deducted from
their wages for uniform rental and cleaning."

     (3) Any Class Member who objects to the Proposed Settlement
and/or the anticipated Fee Petition, and wish to appear at the
Final Approval Hearing and show cause, if any, why the same should
not be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class, or why a final judgment should
not be entered thereon, must serve and file written objections in
the form and manner required by the Notice of Hearing. Objections
must contain the objector's full name and current address and
include any evidence the objector intends to offer in support of
the objection. Such objections must be filed with the Court and
served upon Class Counsel and counsel for Zolman by the date
identified in this Order at the following addresses:

United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana:
Zolman's Counsel: Class Counsel Clerk Alison G. Fox Ronald Weldy
United States District Court for the Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Weldy & Assoc. Northern District of Indiana 202 S. Michigan Street
8383 Craig St. 204 S. Main Street Suite 1400 Suite 330 South Bend,
IN 46601 South Bend, IN 46601 Indianapolis, IN 46520

     (4) A hearing will be held before The Honorable Jon E.
DeGuilio, United States District Judge, in his first floor
courtroom at the United States Courthouse, 204 S. Main Street,
South Bend, Indiana, 46601 at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) on April 15, 2015 -
- "Final Approval Hearing -- to determine: (a) whether the
Proposed Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement should
be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class; (b) whether a final judgment
should be entered dismissing the claims of Reamer and the Class
Members with prejudice and on the merits, as required by the
Settlement Agreement; and (c) whether to approve, with or without
modification, the Class Representative's application for an award
of Class Representative fees and of attorneys' fees, costs,
expenses, and disbursements of Class Counsel (anticipated Fee
Petition). The Final Approval Hearing is subject to continuation
or adjournment by the Court without further notice.

     (5) 14 days after Opt-Out Forms are due, Class Counsel shall
file with the Court a Notice of Class Action Opt-Outs, listing the
names of all persons who timely excluded themselves from the
Settlement Class by submitting an Opt-Out Form.

     (6) At least 30 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing,
Class Counsel shall file with this Court and serve a declaration
certifying that notice has been provided to the Settlement Class
as directed in this Order.

     (7) At least 30 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the
parties (as agreed upon) are to request Final Approval of the
Settlement, with the parties to jointly file a memorandum of
points and authorities in support of the motion, and Class Counsel
are to file a motion for approval of attorney's fees and costs.

Thomas Reamer, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald E Weldy --
weldy@weldylaw.com -- and Matthew D Derringer at Weldy &
Associates

Zolman Tire Inc, Defendant, represented by Alison G Fox --
alison.fox@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP


ZUFFA LLC: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of MMA Promotion
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Vera and Pablo Garza, 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-05621 (N.D. Cal., December
24, 2014), arises out of Defendant's 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.

Zuffa, LLC is an American sports promotion company specializing in
mixed martial arts.

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


                             *********

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 2015. 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  * * *