CAR_Public/150112.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 8


                             Headlines

51 EAST HOUSTON: Fails to Offer Accessible Facilities, Suit Says
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 7th Circuit Affirms $14MM Settlement Approval
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in "Hughes" Case
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Faces "Church" Class Action in S.D. Ala.
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Faces "Anger" Class Action in E.D. Mich.

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Inks Stipulation in Stockholder Litigation
AMERICAN REALTY: Tampa Fund Sues Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
APPLE INC: Steve Jobs Deposition Remained Classified
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS 8 Storage Capacity
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Actions Stayed Pending Delaware Cases

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Delaware Class Action Sought
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Member in LSI Merger Case to Appeal
BAKER TILLY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
BARRETT BUSINESS: Expands Funding Resources With New Credit Line
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Denies Overtime and Meal/Rest Breaks, Suit Says

BRIDGEWATER STATE: Settlement Obtains Tentative Court Approval
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dropped From Direct Purchasers' Class Suit
CAL-MAINE FOODS: April Hearing on Indirect Purchasers' Cert. Bid
CAL-MAINE FOODS: July 2 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
CAL-MAINE FOODS: To Settle Marsh Supermarkets' Claims

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Finalizing Settlement Papers in Winn-Dixie Case
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Agrees to Increase Class Action Settlement
CONDE NAST: Intern Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Court Dismisses "Alequin" Collective Action
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: To Seek Dismissal of "ChHab" Case

DYNAMIC AIRWAYS: Sued Over Failure Refund for Delayed Flights
ELECT HOME: Doesn't Properly Pay Overtime, "Jones" Suit Claims
ELTMAN ELTMAN: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Illegal Debt Collection
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Adcox" Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
EXXON MOBIL: Wants to Bar Release of Pipeline Information

FANNIE MAE: March 3 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FLORIDA: Judge Hinkle Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
GEARBOX: "Aliens Colonial Marines" False Advertising Suit Ongoing
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Chevy Volt Faulty Steering Wheels
H & M AUTO: Faces "Balceiro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HALLIBURTON CO: Class Suit Ruling May Impact D&O Policies
ILLINOIS: Health Insurance Refund Scheduled for June 2015
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JASON DIAMOND: Faces Suit in Florida Alleging TCPA Violations
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accuses of Using Deceptive Packaging

JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: February 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Accused of Defrauding Customers on Discounts
LANDRY'S INC: Faces "Griffith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LEAR CORP: March 10 Auto-Parts Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MCS CLAIM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Robbins Arroyo Investigates Fosun Buyout
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Suit in Cal. Over Defective Seat Heaters
MERCK: RD Legal Sues Two Lawyers Over Class Action Funding Loan
MERCHANT SERVICES: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued for Violating Debt Collection Laws

MILWAUKEE, WI: Home-Rule Rights Justify Pension Reductions
MRS BPO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
NATIONAL SECURITY: Illegally Seizes Net Exchanges, Advocates Say
NEVADA HEALTH: Insurance Broker Assesses Status of Class Action
OVER EASY: "Beastly" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

PACIFICARE OF NEVADA: Patients Can Make Negligence Claim
PARADE ENTERPRISES: Faces "Tiko" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PATH: Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages Can Proceed
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: City of Providence Files Class Action
PFIZER INC: Removes "Sweigart" Suit to New York District Court

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
RCS CAPITAL: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
RCS CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action in NY
REALMARK PROPERTY: Settlement Not Calculable At This Time
REHABCARE GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, R. Fellen Suit Says

REVENUE ASSISTANCE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
RJ REYNOLDS: Balks at Judge's Order to Admit They Lied to Public
ROMA FOOD: Removes "Wilder" Suit to New Jersey District Court
RAYONIER INC: January 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SLM CORP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Ill.

STRYKER ENERGY: "Estes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SUSHI NANIWA: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SYNGENTA CORP: "Cronin" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Lanier" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: Rooks Farm Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL

TALISMAN ENERGY: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Sale of Biz to Repsol
TARGET CORP: Court Dismissed Most Claims in Data Breach Suit
TOLEDO, OH: Plaintiff Asks High Court to Reconsider Camera Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Award "Pigford" Attorney's Fees
WALGREEN CO: Inks MOU to Resolve "Hays" and "Potocki" Actions

WHOLE FOODS: "Clemente" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
WHOLE FOODS: "Knox" Class Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Makes Defective Hip Implants, Songwriter Says
ZUFFA LLC: Boies Schiller to Lead UFC Class Action Defense
ZUFFA LLC: UFC Abandons In-House Drug Testing; Class Suit Pending

* Privacy & Data Security Concerns to Take Center Stage This Year
* Renewed Interest in "Tort Reform" Expected This Year


                            *********


51 EAST HOUSTON: Fails to Offer Accessible Facilities, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. 51 East Houston St., Inc. d/b/a
Milano's Bar, a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
10163-VSB (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendant
is continuing to discriminate against the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated disabled individuals by failing to provide
accessible facilities, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mr. Hurley suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele.  He is permanently disabled and is
confined to a wheelchair.

51 East Houston St., Inc., doing business as Milano's Bar, is the
operator of a retail "bar" establishment located in McDougal
Street in New York County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 7th Circuit Affirms $14MM Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
approval of a class action settlement.

The Company said, "On April 26, 2012 and May 1, 2012, we, along
with certain of our former officers, were named as a defendant in
two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which were
consolidated as Wong v. Accretive Health et al. The primary
allegations are that our public statements, including filings with
the SEC, were false and/or misleading about our violations of
certain federal and Minnesota privacy and debt collection laws. On
September 26, 2013, without any admission of liability or
wrongdoing, we entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve
these suits for $14 million, which has been funded into escrow by
our insurance carriers. On April 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of
the Settlement Agreement. A single objector to the Settlement
Agreement appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, and, on December 9, 2014, the court of appeals affirmed
the district court's approval of the settlement."


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in "Hughes" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice, the case Hughes v.
Accretive Health, Inc. et al., however the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.

The Company said, "On May 17, 2013, we along with certain of our
directors and former officers were named as a defendant in a
putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Hughes v.
Accretive Health, Inc. et al.). The primary allegations, relating
to our March 8, 2013 announcement that we would be restating our
prior period financials, are that our public statements, including
filings with the SEC, were false and/or misleading with respect to
our revenue recognition and earnings prospects. On November 27,
2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our directors (other than
Mary Tolan). On January 31, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint. On September 25, 2014, the Court granted our motion to
dismiss without prejudice, however the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on October 23, 2014. We continue to believe we
have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves, Mary Tolan, and our former officers against these
claims. The outcome is not presently determinable."


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Faces "Church" Class Action in S.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that on February 11, 2014,
the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama (Church v. Accretive Health, Inc.).

The Company said, "The primary allegations are that we attempted
to collect debts without providing the notice required by the
FDCPA and attempted to collect debts after they were discharged in
bankruptcy. We believe that we have meritorious defenses and
intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The
outcome is not presently determinable."


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Faces "Anger" Class Action in E.D. Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that on July 22, 2014, the
Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc.).

The Company said, "The primary allegations are that we attempted
to collect debts without providing the notice required by the
FDCPA. We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The outcome is
not presently determinable."


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Inks Stipulation in Stockholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Activision Blizzard, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, that
on December 19, 2014, Activision Blizzard, Inc. (the "Company"),
as the nominal defendant, entered into a stipulation of compromise
and settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") with respect to the
litigation captioned In re: Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation (the "Lawsuit") relating to the Company's repurchase of
shares of its common stock pursuant to a stock purchase agreement
(the "Stock Purchase Agreement") with Vivendi, S.A., then the
Company's majority shareholder ("Vivendi"), and ASAC II LP, an
exempted limited partnership acting by its general partner, ASAC
II LLC (together, "ASAC").  Vivendi and ASAC are also party to the
Settlement Agreement, as are certain former members of the
Company's board of directors (the "Board") who were appointed to
the Board by Vivendi, the members of the special committee of the
Board formed in connection with the Company's consideration of the
transaction, the Company's chief executive officer, Robert A.
Kotick, the chairman of the Board, Brian G. Kelly, and the lead
plaintiff, Anthony Pacchia.

On December 23, 2014, the Court entered an order scheduling a
hearing to be held on March 4, 2015 at 2:00 p.m., Eastern time,
to, among other things, determine whether the settlement is
adequate, fair and reasonable and whether the Settlement Agreement
should be approved.

If the Settlement Agreement is approved:

     -- the Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice;

     -- the plaintiff, the Company, the class and every
stockholder will release all claims against the defendants
relating to the transactions consummated pursuant to the Stock
Purchase Agreement;

     -- the defendants will release all claims against the
Company's stockholders, officers and directors, and the affiliates
of them, relating to the institution, prosecution of and
settlement of the Lawsuit (other than claims relating to the
enforcement of the settlement);

     -- the defendants will pay an aggregate of $275 million to
the Company, $67.5 million of which will be paid by Vivendi and
the remaining $207.5 million of which will be paid by the
remaining defendants or their insurers, up to $72.5 million of
which will be paid to the plaintiff's counsel (who may, in turn,
pay up to $50,000 to the lead plaintiff);

     -- on or prior to July 31, 2015, the number of members of
which the Board consists will be increased by two and, for so long
as ASAC holds at least 5% of the Company's common stock, the
resulting vacancies will be filled by persons who are independent
of, and unaffiliated with, ASAC and their affiliates (including
Messrs. Kotick and Kelly);

     -- the stockholders agreement entered into among the Company,
ASAC and, for the limited purposes set forth therein, Messrs.
Kotick and Kelly will be amended to provide that, for so long as
ASAC holds at least 5% of the Company's common stock, Messrs.
Kotick and Kelly must vote any shares of the Company's common
stock they beneficially own which, when aggregated with ASAC's
shares, represent shares of the Company's common stock in excess
of 19.9% of the Company's common stock either (1) in a manner
proportionally consistent with the vote of the shares of common
stock not owned by them or ASAC or (2) in accordance with the
recommendation, if any, of a majority of the members of the Board
not affiliated with ASAC; the stockholders agreement currently
obligates Messrs. Kotick and Kelly to vote any shares of the
Company's common stock they beneficially own which, when
aggregated with ASAC's shares, represent shares of the Company's
common stock in excess of 24.9% of the Company's common stock in
that manner.

Under the Court's scheduling order, the Company is required to, no
later than 60 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing (i.e.,
by January 3, 2015), provide notice to the members of the class
and the Company's current stockholders.


AMERICAN REALTY: Tampa Fund Sues Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10134
(S.D.N.Y., December 29, 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.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. acquires, owns, and
operates single-tenant, freestanding commercial real estate
properties, primarily subject to net leases with high credit
quality tenants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PC
      28 W. 44th St., Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 564-1637
      Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
      E-mail: psafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      One Tampa City Center
      201 N. Franklin St., 7th Fl.
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 314-6484
      Facsimile: (813) 222-2406
      E-mail: cpolaszek@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com


APPLE INC: Steve Jobs Deposition Remained Classified
----------------------------------------------------
The public did not get a chance to see a videotaped deposition of
Steve Jobs, taken for an antitrust lawsuit six months before the
co-founder of Apple computer died, reports Arvin Temkar at
Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over a
recently closed Apple antitrust lawsuit, denied media requests for
the tape that was played during the trial.

The class action accused the tech giant of monopolizing the
digital player market and overcharging for iPods.  Plaintiffs'
attorneys played footage of Jobs on Dec. 5, four days into the
trial.

Jobs appeared in his signature long-sleeve black pullover and
answered many of the attorney's questions with: "I don't
remember."

The Associated Press and CNN on Dec. 8 sought access to the
deposition tape, in a motion which Apple opposed.

Rogers decided to keep the video under wraps in a ruling on
December 17, two days after the jury found Apple not guilty.

Rogers accepted Apple's argument that "if release of video
deposition routinely occurred, witnesses might be reticent to
submit voluntarily to video depositions in the future."

Rogers added: "If cameras in courtrooms were not currently
prohibited, the argument might have less weight."

The case is The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
05-CV-0037 YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS 8 Storage Capacity
---------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for SiliconBeat, reports that Apple has been
hit with a lawsuit alleging that it doesn't inform users just how
much storage its new operating system will eat up -- and then
prods them to buy more space through its iCloud service.

The case, filed in the Bay Area's federal court on Dec. 30, claims
iOS 8 can take up as much as 23.1 percent of the advertised
storage capacity on Apple gadgets, but few users realize that when
they make their purchases.  Seeking damages and changes to Apple
policies under California state law, plaintiffs hope to represent
sweeping classes of users who bought Apple gadgets with iOS 8
already installed and users who upgraded to the latest version of
the software.

"We feel that there are a substantial number of Apple consumers
that have been shortchanged, and we'll be pursuing the claims
vigorously," said William Anderson, a lawyer at Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm.

A spokeswoman for Apple declined to comment.

Launched in September, iOS 8 was initially marred by a few kinks
that have been ironed out with software updates.  Sixty-four
percent of iOS devices now run on iOS 8, according to an Apple
page for developers.

Apple has touted iOS 8 as the "biggest iOS 8 release ever," a
tagline plaintiffs lawyers tried to spin to their advantage in the
complaint, arguing that few users understood just how much space
the software would take up.  They claim Apple exploits the space
constraints by peddling iCloud subscriptions when users run out of
storage.

"Using these sharp business tactics, defendant gives less storage
capacity than advertised, only to offer to sell that capacity in a
desperate moment, e.g., when a consumer is trying to record or
take photos at a child or grandchild's recital, basketball game or
wedding," plaintiffs allege in the complaint.

Depending on the device they purchase, consumers who install iOS 8
allegedly receive substantially less storage than advertised,
ranging from 18.1 percent for the iPhone 5s to 23.1 percent for
the iPod, according to the complaint.

Apple has fended off such claims before, beating back a Canadian
case in 2012 that alleged the company misled consumers about the
amount of storage on the iPod.  Competitors such as Samsung and
Microsoft have also been slapped with claims that they were not
upfront about the true storage capacity of their gadgets.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Actions Stayed Pending Delaware Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended November 2, 2014, that in June and July
2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Santa Clara challenging the Company's
acquisition of PLX Technology, Inc.  On July 22, 2014, the court
consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That
same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending
resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Delaware Class Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended November 2, 2014, that defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in
Delaware over the Company's acquisition of PLX Technology, Inc.

In June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court
consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880-
VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On
July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed
the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but
intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-
closing litigation.

The Company's acquisition of PLX closed on August 12, 2014.

On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies
Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. and the acquisition
subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.
Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's 14D-9 recommendation statement
contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The
complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. On November 26, 2014, defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim as a
matter of law.

The Delaware class litigation is on-going.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Member in LSI Merger Case to Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended November 2, 2014, that a class member in the
lawsuit relating to the Company's acquisition of LSI Corporation
filed a notice of appeal from an Order and Final Judgment.

The Company said, "Fifteen purported class action complaints have
been filed by alleged former stockholders of LSI against us. Eight
of those lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
and the other seven lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara on behalf of the
same putative class as the Delaware actions, or the California
Actions. On January 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery
entered an order consolidating the Delaware actions into a single
action, or the Delaware Action. These actions generally alleged
that we aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the
members of LSI's board of directors in connection with the merger
because the merger was not in the best interest of LSI, the merger
consideration is unfair and certain other terms of the merger
agreement were unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits sought
to rescind the merger or obtain unspecified money damages, costs
and attorneys' fees."

"On March 7, 2014, the parties to the Delaware Action reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action on a class-
wide basis, and negotiated a stipulation of settlement that was
presented to the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2014. On
March 12, 2014, the parties to the California Actions entered into
a stipulation staying the California Actions pending resolution of
the Delaware Action. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action filed a motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement and award of attorneys' fees and expenses with the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

"On June 10, 2014, the Delaware court approved the settlement,
including the payment of $2 million to counsel for the
stockholders, entered final judgment and dismissed the case, or
the Order and Final Judgment. On July 10, 2014, a class member of
the Delaware Action filed a notice of appeal from the Order and
Final Judgment. We and our Board believe the appeal and underlying
claims are entirely without merit and, in the event the settlement
is overturned, we intend to vigorously defend these actions."


BAKER TILLY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, on
Dec. 31 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of investors who purchased common stock of China North East
Petroleum Holdings Limited (formerly OTC: CNEP, CNEP.OB) between
January 1, 2010 and April 4, 2013, seeking remedies under the
federal securities laws.

The class action asserts claims against Baker Tilly Hong Kong for
their role as auditor of China North East Petroleum's financial
statements that are alleged to have been false and misleading.
To join the Baker Tilly class action, visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-469.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Laurence Rosen, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or lrosen@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

"The lawsuit claims that China North East's auditor Baker Tilly
Hong Kong Limited, fraudulently issued clean audit reports for
China North East's financial statements," said Rosen attorney
Phillip Kim.  "This appears to be another audit firm that has
conducted fraudulent audits of a Chinese company, causing
investors to lose nearly the entire value of their investment,"
added Mr. Kim.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 2, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation and recover your
losses go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-469.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-
free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
lrosen@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Expands Funding Resources With New Credit Line
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zacks Equity Research reports that business management solutions
provider Barrett Business Services Inc. expanded its funding
resources with a new credit line from its principal bank, Wells
Fargo & Company.  The additional credit facility will be employed
to meet the increased workers' compensation liability and claims
expense accrual for the last reported quarter.

The terms of the funding facility were finalized a fortnight ago
when the company reached an agreement in principle with Wells
Fargo.  Per the agreement, Barrett Business Services will gain
access to a two-year $40 million term loan and a revolving credit
line worth $14 million, with a $5 million sub-limit for unsecured
standby letters of credit, which will expire on Oct 1, 2017.

Furthermore, the contract raises the limit of the company's cash-
secured letters of credit to $114.3 million to comply with the
collateral requirements related to surety deposits for workers'
compensation purposes in the state of California.

On Dec 29, Barrett Business Services met its funding requirements
for the workers' compensation reserve due on Dec 31, 2014, using
proceeds from the term loan as well as cash on hand.

In November, several securities litigation firms filed a class
action lawsuit against Barrett Business Services and some of its
officers, alleging infringement of federal securities laws.  The
firms claimed that Barrett breached the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by failing to divulge that it had accrued its self-insured
workers' compensation reserves, which resulted in an overstatement
of the company's earnings.

The lawsuit action was triggered after an analyst published a
report on Sep 16, accusing Barrett of understating reserves and
claiming that the company "may be required to recognize a material
charge to substantially increase its loss reserves."

The analyst's concerns were validated when the company recognized
an $80 million pre-tax increase in workers' compensation reserves
in its third-quarter 2014 results, which in effect obliterated the
company's pre-tax earnings for the past five years, and resulted
in third-quarter net loss of $37.8 million.  In response,
Barrett's stock plummeted nearly 59% on unusually heavy volume, to
close at $18.28 per share on Oct 29, 2014. Since then, the stock
has recovered 35% to date.

Barrett Business Services is now attempting to meet its reserve
requirements, even as the class action lawsuit seeks to recoup
damages against the company on behalf of the defrauded investors
who suffered heavy losses on their investments.

Barrett Business Services presently carries a Zacks Rank #3
(Hold).  Some better-ranked stocks in the outsourcing industry
include Convergys Corp. and Exlservice Holdings, Inc., both
holding a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy).


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Denies Overtime and Meal/Rest Breaks, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
restaurant chain BJ's denies overtime, as well as meal and rest
breaks, to certain assistant managers, a Richmond, Calif., woman
claims in a class action.

Tracy Blanchard says BJ's employed her as a salaried front-house
assistant manager from February 2013 to approximately April 2014
but classified her as exempt from overtime.

While working at five BJ's locations in California as an assistant
manager, Blanchard says she "worked long hours."

"Plaintiff typically worked approximately fifty (50) to sixty (60)
hours per week," the complaint filed December 16 in Orange County
Superior Court states.

Blanchard says BJ's should not have exempted assistant managers
like her since "their primary duty was not to manage defendants'
(sic) enterprise," and the position does not qualify as a bona
fide "executive."

"Rather, as front house assistant managers, plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees spent the majority of their workweeks
performing the same job functions as nonexempt, hourly employees
in defendants' restaurants," the complaint states.

Just like an hourly employee, assistant managers spend most of
their time "greeting and seating customers, providing customer
service, bussing tables, assisting with food preparation,
cleaning, preparing take-out orders, and assisting servers and
bartenders," according to the complaint.

Moreover, assistant managers "did not possess the authority to
hire and fire employees without first obtaining approval from"
BJ's, the complaint continues.

Blanchard says BJ's trains all front-house assistant managers "to
competently perform all of the tasks that were also assigned to
defendants' hourly, non-exempt employees."

Since BJ's evaluates these workers "based on their ability to
perform these non-exempt duties," the activities were expected,
according to the complaint.

Each day that BJ's assistant managers "did not receive a timely
uninterrupted meal period," or that they missed a rest period,
they should have been paid for an additional hour at the regular
rate, Blanchard also says.

Of BJ's 146 casual-dining restaurants in the United States, 64 are
in California, operating under the names BJ's Restaurant &
Brewery, BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse, BJ's Pizza & Grill, or BJ's
Grill, the complaint states.

Blanchard allegedly worked at BJ's locations in Vacaville,
Natomas, Roseville, San Mateo and San Bruno.  She seeks unpaid
wages and civil penalties under California labor law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raul Perez, Esq.
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4881
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com


BRIDGEWATER STATE: Settlement Obtains Tentative Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Allen, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a judge has
tentatively approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit
aimed at improving the treatment of patients with mental illness
at troubled Bridgewater State Hospital, including a drastic
reduction in the use of physical restraints and solitary
confinement.

The settlement -- initially filed on behalf of three patients,
including one who had been kept in solitary confinement for 6,400
hours during a single year -- calls for a litany of improvements
in patient safety at the facility and allows Norfolk Superior
Court Justice Paul D. Wilson to oversee whether the state is
meeting its commitments for up to four years.

"The agreement will prevent the confinement of severely mentally
ill patients to months of solitary confinement for trivial and
illegal reasons," said Roderick MacLeish Jr. of Clark Hunt Ahern &
Embry, lead attorney for the patients.  "However, we remain the
only state in the country where these types of patients can be
held indefinitely in a prison setting. It's a moral disgrace that
has to end."

A spokesman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, who defended the
state in the lawsuit, declined to comment.

The tentative agreement, which could be finalized after a hearing
before Justice Wilson in late February, marks the second time in
December the state has settled with outside groups to avoid
further legal action about alleged mistreatment of patients at
Bridgewater, which, despite its name, is a medium-security prison
for men with mental health problems who have had contact with the
criminal justice system.

The settlement strictly limits to emergencies the use of solitary
confinement and physical restraints to control unruly patients.
The Globe has reported that at least three Bridgewater patients
have died in recent years after allegedly improper use of physical
restraint, including Joshua K. Messier, whose parents received a
$3 million settlement from the state and private mental health
company.

"If the protections in this settlement agreement had been in place
in 2009, my son Josh would be alive today," said Mr. Messier's
mother, Lisa Brown.  "The best I can do to honor his memory is to
support these important reforms for other patients."

The Disability Law Center, a federally funded advocacy group,
reached a separate agreement with state officials earlier in
December that also calls for Bridgewater to continue reducing its
use of seclusion and restraint, potentially dangerous tactics that
other mental health facilities are moving away from.  That
settlement calls for the center to establish an office at
Bridgewater that will monitor staff treatment of patients on a
regular basis.

Peter Minich, one of the patients named in the class action
lawsuit, had been sent to Bridgewater in January 2013 after he
allegedly attacked the staff at Lemuel Shattuck Hospital in
Boston.  In just over a year, records show that Bridgewater staff
kept Mr. Minich, who suffers from schizophrenia, in isolation for
more than 6,400 hours.  In addition, he was cuffed hand and foot
to a bed for 800 hours.

Since Mr. MacLeish filed the lawsuit in March 2014, Bridgewater
State Hospital has transferred all three of the named plaintiffs
in the lawsuit to the Worcester Recovery Center.  In addition, the
Patrick administration has proposed building a new facility
designed for potentially violent mental health patients with no
criminal record.

Under the agreement with Mr. MacLeish and Prisoners Legal
Services, the Department of Correction pledges to make immediate
improvements in patient care.  Meanwhile, the Department of Mental
Health has pledged to provide staff to immediately boost the
quality of care at Bridgewater.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dropped From Direct Purchasers' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that the Court entered
final judgment dismissing all claims against the Company with
prejudice and dismissing the Company from the Direct Purchaser
Putative Class Action.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  On February 28, 2014, the Court entered
an order granting preliminary approval of the Company's
previously-reported settlement of these cases, conditionally
certifying the class for settlement purposes and approving the
Notice Plan submitted by the parties.  The Court held a final
fairness hearing on the settlement on September 18, 2014.  No
parties objected to the settlement.  On October 10, 2014, the
Court entered an order granting final approval to the settlement.
On November 25, 2014, the Court entered final judgment dismissing
all claims against the Company with prejudice and dismissing the
Company from the case.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: April Hearing on Indirect Purchasers' Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that the Court will hold
a hearing on April 20-21, 2015, on the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the
defendants' renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising
outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of
action.  Under the current schedule, the Court will hold a hearing
on April 20-21, 2015, on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: July 2 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that seven cases in
which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been
consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed
Egg Products Antitrust Litigation,  No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the defendants'
renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for
damages arising before September 24, 2004.  The parties have
completed nearly all fact discovery related to these cases and
expert analysis and proceedings are underway.  The deadline for
parties to file dispositive motions is July 2, 2015.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: To Settle Marsh Supermarkets' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that on November 20,
2014, more than six years after the filing of the original cases
in these proceedings, Marsh Supermarkets, LLC filed a new case
against the Company and certain other defendants asserting
substantially the same allegations as were raised in the other
non-class cases.  The Company has agreed in principle to settle
all claims brought by Marsh Supermarkets, LLC and is in the
process of finalizing formal settlement papers. The terms of the
settlement are confidential.  The Company is settling this case
for an amount and on terms that are not expected to have a
material impact on the Company's results of operations.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Finalizing Settlement Papers in Winn-Dixie Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that on May 6, 2014, the
Company agreed in principle to settle all claims brought by the
four plaintiffs in one of the non-class cases pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.; Roundy's Supermarkets,
Inc.; C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.; and H.J. Heinz Company, L.P. v.
Michael Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00510-GP.  The
parties are still in the process of finalizing their formal
settlement papers.  The terms of the settlement are confidential.
The Company is settling this case for an amount and on terms that
are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's
results of operations.


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Agrees to Increase Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Scranton Times-Tribune,
reports that Chesapeake Appalachia LLC has agreed to increase
payment from $7.5 million to $11 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit with natural gas leaseholders who claimed the company
wrongly charged them post-production fees, according to court
documents.

The proposed settlement would resolve a more than year-long
dispute among law firms over the handling of the case that
derailed the original settlement reached in August 2013 with
Demchak Partners, the lead plaintiffs in the case.

The proposal, filed Dec. 18 in federal court, increases the amount
of up-front money thousands of Pennsylvania leaseholders would
receive and contains other financial benefits over the original
settlement, according to the proposal filed by attorney Michelle
O'Brien of the O'Brien Law Group in Moosic and several other law
firms.

Jackie Root, the owner of a landowner consulting firm and
president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association
of Royalty Owners (NARO), said she still has concerns over the
settlement.

"Materially there is not much change in the settlement.  They are
getting a little more than they would have, but they are giving up
an awful lot in this," she said.

The original case was filed by Joseph and Billie Demchak of
Meshoppen and 12 other plaintiffs, who sought to stop Chesapeake
from deducting from their royalty payments the costs associated
with the transportation and refinement of natural gas extracted
from Marcellus Shale.  The suit alleged Chesapeake deducted the
fees despite terms in the lease that precluded them from doing so.
Chesapeake maintained the deductions were proper.

Attorneys for the Demchak plaintiffs claimed the settlement was a
good deal for all leaseholders, but others, including Russell and
Gayle Burkett, disagreed.  The Burketts, who had a separate class
action suit pending against Chesapeake before an arbitrator, filed
a court action in September 2013 that sought to block the Demchak
case from proceeding.

The case remained in limbo as attorneys for the Burketts, Demchak
Partners and Chesapeake battled over whether the case should be
decided by an arbitration panel or in federal court.  The
attorneys continued to negotiate and recently agreed to join their
cases under the new proposed settlement.

The revised agreement would reimburse leaseholders 55 percent of
post-production costs taken up until June 1, 2014.  The original
agreement set the cut off date at Sept. 1, 2013.  The additional
months will add roughly $3.5 million to the payout to class
members.

Leaseholders, who currently pay 100 percent of post-production
costs, will continue to pay a portion of those costs.  The
percentage will be reduced to 66 percent, however.  The original
agreement had leaseholders paying 72.5 percent of the costs.
Leaseholders will continue to pay 100 percent of costs to related
to transportation of natural gas through pipelines.

Attorney Douglas Clark of the Peckville section of Blakely, who
represented the Burketts, said his clients were prepared to
proceed with their case, but recent appellate court rulings in
other similar cases presented additional obstacles.

"You always wish you could get 100 percent, but there have been
significant developments since we started this case," he said.
"There is significant risk proceeding with the litigation.  We
weighed that against the improved offer and felt this was fair and
appropriate."

Gordon Pennoyer, spokesman for Chesapeake, said the company is
pleased to have reached a "fair and reasonable" agreement.

The amount of attorneys fees has not yet been determined, but the
agreement sets the maximum that can be sought at one-third of the
total $11 million back payment award.  The attorneys are also
entitled to receive up to one-third of the savings lease owners
will receive due to the reduction in post-production costs going
forward, but that payment would stop after five years.

The proposed settlement will now be reviewed by U.S. District
Judge Malachy Mannion, who must determine if it fairly and
adequately compensates all class members.  Any class member who
objects to the terms can opt out of it and/or file objections
before a ruling is issued.

Ms. Root said she believes the landowner leases clearly prohibit
Chesapeake from deducting the fees.  NARO has not taken a position
on the settlement, but she cautioned lease owners to carefully
review the terms of the deal to determine if it's in their best
interest.

"We're not out there to tell anyone to opt in or out.  We help
them understand what it means to them," she said.


CONDE NAST: Intern Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Conde Nast on
Dec. 29 won a federal judge's preliminary approval to pay $5.85
million to settle a class-action lawsuit by thousands of former
interns who claimed the magazine publisher underpaid them.

The settlement, made public on Nov. 13, applies to roughly 7,500
interns who had worked at magazines including Vanity Fair, Vogue
and the New Yorker.

Former interns who worked at Conde Nast from June 2007 to the
present are expected to receive payments from $700 to $1,900.

In granting preliminary approval, U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry
Pitman in Manhattan said the payout appeared reasonable, citing an
estimate by the interns' lawyers that it exceeded 60 percent of
estimated unpaid wages.

"Given defendant's size and stature in the publishing world, I
assume it could withstand greater judgment," Judge Pitman wrote.
"This fact, by itself, however, does not render the proposed
settlement unfair."

The law firm Outten & Golden, which represents the interns, plans
to seek legal fees of $650,000, or 11.1 percent of the settlement
fund.

Judge Pitman scheduled a June 22, 2015, fairness hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement.

The lawsuit is one of many accusing media and entertainment
companies of paying interns little or nothing for their work.

Comcast Corp's NBCUniversal reached a $6.4 million settlement of a
similar lawsuit in October.  Conde Nast canceled its internship
program soon after it was sued in June 2013.

The case is Ballinger et al v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc
d/b/a Conde Nast Publications, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, No. 13-04036.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Court Dismisses "Alequin" Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 31, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended November 23, 2014, that the Court
dismissed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
as it pertained to the five remaining named plaintiffs.

In September 2012, a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Alequin v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc., in which named plaintiffs claim that the Company required or
allowed certain employees at Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn
Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52 to work off the clock and
required them to perform tasks unrelated to their tipped duties
while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate of pay.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

In July 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida conditionally certified a nationwide class of
servers and bartenders who worked in the aforementioned
restaurants at any point from September 6, 2009 through September
6, 2012.  Unlike a class action, a collective action requires
potential class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out"
following the issuance of a notice.  Out of the approximately
217,000 opt-in notices distributed, 20,225 were returned.

In June 2014, the Company filed a motion seeking to have the class
decertified. In September 2014, the Court granted the Company's
motion to decertify the class which resulted in the dismissal of
all opt-ins. Unless the plaintiffs appeal the Court's decision,
only the claims of the original named plaintiffs remain.

In October 2014, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay the proceedings pending completion of arbitration through the
Company's Dispute Resolution Program as to forty-nine of the
fifty-four named plaintiffs.  In November 2014, the Court
dismissed the lawsuit as it pertained to the five remaining named
plaintiffs.

"We believe that our wage and hour policies comply with the law
and that we have meritorious defenses to the remaining substantive
claims in this matter. An estimate of the possible loss, if any,
or the range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the
proceeding," the Company said.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: To Seek Dismissal of "ChHab" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 31, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended November 23, 2014, that the Company
will have an opportunity to seek to have the class decertified
and/or seek to have the case ChHab v. Darden Restaurants,
dismissed on its merits.

In November, 2011, a lawsuit entitled ChHab v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under the
applicable New York state wage and hour statutes. The named
plaintiffs claim that the Company required or allowed certain
employees at The Capital Grille to work off the clock, share tips
with individuals who polished silverware to assist the plaintiffs,
and required the plaintiffs to perform tasks unrelated to their
tipped duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate
of pay. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back
wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

In September 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York conditionally certified a nationwide
class for the Fair Labor Standards Act claims only of tipped
employees who worked in the aforementioned restaurants at any
point from November 17, 2008 through September 19, 2013. Potential
class members are required to "opt in" rather than "opt out"
following the issuance of a notice. Out of the approximately 3,200
opt-in notices distributed, 541 were returned. As with the Alequin
matter, the Company will have an opportunity to seek to have the
class decertified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on its
merits.

"We believe that our wage and hour policies comply with the law
and that we have meritorious defenses to the substantive claims in
this matter. An estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the
range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding," the
Company said.


DYNAMIC AIRWAYS: Sued Over Failure Refund for Delayed Flights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moses Rambarran, Rohan Rambaran, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Dynamic Airways, LLC, A Virginia
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 7:14-cv-10138 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to refund the Plaintiffs for delayed flights.

Dynamic Airways, LLC is a Virginia Limited Liability Company that
operates commercial airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald Joseph Schutz, Esq.
      SCHUTZ LITIGATION LLC
      535 Central Avenue
      Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 823-3222
      Facsimile: (727) 895-3222
      E-mail: donschutz@netscape.net


ELECT HOME: Doesn't Properly Pay Overtime, "Jones" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Jones, individually, and on behalf of all similarly-
situated v. Elect Home Care, LLC, a For Profit Company, f/k/a
Elite Senior Care, L.L.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-03018 (W.D. Tenn.,
December 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay proper overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act.

Elect Home Care, LLC offers health care and housekeeping services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christina Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 849-2303
      E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com


ELTMAN ELTMAN: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Illegal Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jovana N. Moukengeschaie, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-07539 (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2014), seeks to redress
the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. is regularly engaged in the
collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers through
correspondence and telephone calls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
      BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      26 Broadway, 21st floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 248-7906
      Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
      E-mail: brian@brianbromberg.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Adcox" Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kemberley D. Adcox, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04113-ELR-AJB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David F. Walbert, Esq.
          Joseph Matthew Maguire, Jr., Esq.
          Michael Travis Foust, Esq.
          PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
          75 Fourteenth Street, N.E., 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-8000
          Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
          E-mail: dwalbert@pcwlawfirm.com
                  mmaguire@pcwlawfirm.com
                  tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com


EXXON MOBIL: Wants to Bar Release of Pipeline Information
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Exxon Mobil said it shouldn't
have to release any further information on a proposed but
abandoned pipeline intended to run alongside the Pegasus pipeline
that ruptured in 2013 in central Arkansas.

The company is facing a class-action lawsuit by landowners after
the pipeline spilled more than 200,000 gallons of oil in a
Mayflower subdivision.

Lawyers for the oil giant argued in a Dec. 29 court brief that
information pertaining to the Texas Access Pipeline project isn't
relevant to the case.  The roughly $3 billion project fell through
after not getting enough shipping commitments from oil producers,
the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported.

"That the defendants once considered building a new pipeline next
to the Pegasus reveals nothing about the current condition of the
Pegasus," the company's attorneys wrote.

The plaintiffs' attorney said he believes Exxon Mobil doesn't want
to release it because it doesn't want to disclose information
about replacing the Pegasus pipeline built in the late 1940s.
Attorney Marcus Bozeman added that "it's ridiculous to suggest
that the Texas Access Pipeline was going to go side by side the
Pegasus pipeline carrying the same oil from the same area to the
same area."

Exxon Mobil has blamed the rupture of the Pegasus pipeline on
manufacturing defects, specifically seam cracks that worsened over
the years.  A federal regulatory agency has proposed fining the
company more than $2.6 million for nine "probable" safety
violations as a result of the accident, which the company has
appealed.

The 850-mile-long Pegasus line runs from Texas to Illinois and was
closed shortly after the oil spill.  A 212-mile segment of the
pipeline in Texas has been restarted.

In August, a U.S. district judge granted class-action status in
the lawsuit, allowing Arnez and Charletha Harper, of Mayflower, to
represent people who currently own property that's subject to an
easement for and physically crossed by the Pegasus pipeline.  They
are seeking the cancellation of those easements and removal or
replacement of the pipeline.


FANNIE MAE: March 3 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No. 08-CV-7831 (PAC)

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN
NOVEMBER 8, 2006 AND SEPTEMBER 5, 2008, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"), EITHER ON THE SECONDARY MARKET OR THROUGH AN ORIGINAL
OFFERING PURSUANT TO A REGISTRATION STATEMENT OR PROSPECTUS: (I)
PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED FANNIE MAE COMMON STOCK AND/OR COMMON STOCK
CALL OPTIONS, AND WERE THEREBY DAMAGED; AND/OR (II) SOLD FANNIE
MAE COMMON STOCK PUT OPTIONS, AND WERE THEREBY DAMAGED (THE
"COMMON STOCK CLASS"); AND/OR (III) PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED FANNIE
MAE PREFERRED STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD, AND WERE THEREBY
DAMAGED (THE "PREFERRED STOCK CLASS") (TOGETHER, THE "SETTLEMENT
CLASSES").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an order of the Court, that the Settlement
Classes in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") have been
preliminarily certified for the purposes of settlement only and
that a Settlement between (i) the Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Management Board and State Boston Retirement Board, as
Lead Plaintiffs for the Common Stock Class, and Tennessee
Consolidated Retirement System, as Lead Plaintiff for the
Preferred Stock Class (collectively, the "Lead Plaintiffs"); (ii)
Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"); and (iii)
the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for Fannie Mae
(together with Lead Plaintiffs and Fannie Mae, the "Settling
Parties"), in the amount of $170,000,000 in cash, has been
proposed by the Settling Parties.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Paul A. Crotty of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 14C, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 3:00 p.m. on
March 3, 2015 to, among other things: (i) determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) determine whether, thereafter, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of October 24,
2014; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the Settlement proceeds should be approved as fair
and reasonable; (iv) consider the application(s) of Lead Counsel
for awards of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses;
and (v) determine such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.  The Court may change the date of the hearing without
providing another notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE COMMON STOCK CLASS AND/OR THE PREFERRED
STOCK CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of (I)
Proposed Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II)
Settlement Hearing; and (III) Requests for Awards of Attorneys'
Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim
and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION
c/o A.B. DATA, LTD., PO BOX 173002
MILWAUKEE, WI  53217
800-949-0192,
www.FannieMae2008Litigation.com
info@FannieMae2008Litigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE COMMON STOCK CLASS

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
Louis Gottlieb, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Tel:  888-219-6877
www.labaton.com

BERMAN DEVALERIO
Glen DeValerio, Esq.
Daniel E. Barenbaum, Esq.
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Tel:  800-516-9926
www.bermandevalerio.com

LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE PREFERRED STOCK CLASS

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Donald R. Hall, Esq.
850 Third Avenue, 14th Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Tel:  800-290-1952
www.kaplanfox.com

If you are a Member of the Settlement Classes, to be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
submit a Proof of Claim, postmarked or received no later than
April 3, 2015.  In addition to mailing your Proof of Claim, you
can also visit www.FannieMae2008Litigation.com to complete and
file a Proof of Claim online.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Classes, you must submit a
written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than
February 2, 2015.  If you are a Member of the Settlement Classes
and do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the Final Order
and Judgment.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and/or application(s) for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses
must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for the
Settling Parties in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice, so that they are received no later than February 2,
2015.

If you are a Member of the Settlement Classes and do not timely
submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share
in the Net Settlement Fund, but you nevertheless will be bound by
the Final Order and Judgment.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact
Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above.

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


FLORIDA: Judge Hinkle Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
--------------------------------------------------------
Denise G. Callahan, writing for Journal-News, reports that a
federal judge has cleared the way for same-sex marriages to be
performed in the state of Florida, beginning on Jan. 6.

In a rare, New Year's Day ruling, Judge Robert Hinkle clarified
his initial ruling, which overturned the ban on same-sex marriage
in the state, saying clerks of court in all Florida counties must
issue licenses.

"The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require
the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants," Judge Hinkle
wrote.  "But as set out in the order that announced issuance of
the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to
issue such licenses."

Judge Hinkle's ruling was in response to a clerk of court who had
asked him for clarification on whether his ruling referred to the
plaintiffs in the original lawsuit or all gay and lesbian couples
in the state.

Some, like the American Civil Liberties Union's Florida chapter,
are cheering victory.

"This is a New Year's Day present from federal Judge Robert Hinkle
-- he has given Florida the roadmap to an orderly transition to
being a state that treats all its people equally," said executive
director Howard Simon.

Judge Hinkle issued a warning to clerks of court who choose not to
follow his order.

"And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take
note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow
individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow
certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance
of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful
plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney's fees."

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had fought same-sex
marriages being legalized in the state, conceded on Dec. 25.

"This office has sought to minimize confusion and uncertainty, and
we are glad the Court has provided additional guidance," Ms. Bondi
said in a prepared statement.  "My office will not stand in the
way as clerks of court determine how to proceed."

Clerks of court in Orange and Osceola counties have already told
Local 6 they plan on issuing same-sex marriage licenses beginning
on Dec. 30.

Other counties in Central Florida were waiting to see what Judge
Hinkle had to say in his clarification.


GEARBOX: "Aliens Colonial Marines" False Advertising Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Crossley, writing for GameSpot, reports that Aliens:Colonial
Marines, the first-person shooter that was panned by critics and
triggered a class action lawsuit over allegedly false advertising,
has been delisted from Steam.

Although Steam customers can still play the Gearbox-developed FPS
if they already own it, the title is no longer available to buy on
the Steam store.  Also missing is the Rebellion-developed Aliens
vs. Predator, also a first-person shooter that did not win over
critics when it shipped in 2010.

The removal of both games could be due to the expiration date of
various license agreements between Sega and rights holder 20th
Century Fox.  Alien: Isolation, the latest title in the series, is
still available to buy on Steam.

Upon its release in February 2013, Aliens: Colonial Marines was
panned by GameSpot reviewer Kevin VanOrd as a "shallow bit of
science-fiction fluff with cheap production values and an
indifferent attitude".

Disappointment among fans led to a class action lawsuit which
claims the game was falsely advertised at trade shows.

Legal representatives for developer Gearbox claimed the studio had
no responsibility in the matters raised by the suit, and in July
requested that the developer should be dropped from the lawsuit.

Then in September, publisher Sega fired back at Gearbox, claiming
that the studio took liberties when discussing an in-development
version of Aliens: Colonial Marines.

The case continues.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Chevy Volt Faulty Steering Wheels
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Ayre, writing for CleanTechnica, reports that a new class-
action lawsuit out of New Jersey is alleging that General Motors
sold the 2011-2014 model years of the Chevy Volt despite knowing
that the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles featured a faulty
(allegedly) steering wheel that occasionally freezes up while
driving, according to recent reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey's federal court
on December 19 by plaintiffs Christopher Johnson and Tara Follari-
Johnson.  The plaintiffs have proposed a countrywide class-action
lawsuit comprising 100+ people, looking for $5 million for the
alleged issue.

The lawsuit makes no mention of any car crashes caused via the
alleged steering wheel fault.  Interestingly, the lawsuit makes
the claim that GM was fully aware of the issue but went ahead with
sales anyways, without addressing it.

The claim has also been made that when GM has been made aware of a
defective steering rack that it has simply replaced it with other
defective parts.

"When class members present to GM's authorized dealerships
complaining of the steering defect, the dealerships recommend
repairs such as replacing the steering rack or steering gear
assembly," the plaintiffs stated in their lawsuit.  "However,
these repairs only temporarily mask the problem."

According to the plaintiffs, GM is as a result of its actions in
violation of the Consumer Fraud Act of New Jersey, the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, and (based on a report by BigClassAction.com)
"in breach of implied warranty of merchantability and express
warranty and common law fraud."

"Complaints that consumers filed with National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration and posted in discussion forums demonstrate
that the defect is widespread and dangerous and that it manifests
without warning," the complaint stated.  "The complaints further
indicate defendants' knowledge of the defect and its danger."

The lawsuit plaintiffs are currently being represented by Joel T
Glucksman of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC and Jordan L Lurie, Robert K
Friedl, Tarek H Zohdy, and Cody R Padgett of Capstone Law APC.


H & M AUTO: Faces "Balceiro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Perez Balceiro and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. H & M Auto Body Repairs, Inc. d/b/a H & M
Collision Center, Mahmoud H. Moussawel, Case No. 1:14-cv-24890
(S.D. Fla., December 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile repair shop in Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALLIBURTON CO: Class Suit Ruling May Impact D&O Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy Elizabeth Stewart and Whitney Warren, writing for Inside
Counsel, report that as insurers recover from the credit crisis
and Great Recession by modifying policy terms and adjusting
premiums, corporate policyholders must stay informed when shopping
for directors and officers (D&O) policies.

Trending in the D&O market are higher premiums to hedge insurer
risks associated with Side A coverage in sky-rocketing shareholder
derivative settlements, coverage enhancements to defeat class
certification in the early stages of securities class action
lawsuits, potential liability associated with the recent spike in
initial public offerings, and increased demand for transactional
liability policies in the mergers and acquisitions (M&A) arena,
the effects of which are still unknown.

Defense costs: Rebutting 'fraud on the market' presumption

While securities class action litigation has declined since 2012,
the U.S. Supreme Court's June 23, 2014, ruling in Halliburton Co.
v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. may impact D&O policies, specifically
on the "fraud on the market" presumption.  This presumption stems
from the Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson,
which eased the requirement that plaintiffs seeking class
certification under Rule 10b-5 must prove actual reliance on
material misstatements by the defendant company.

According to Basic, the court can presume for purposes of class
certification that stock traded in an efficient market reflects
all available information, including any misstatements by the
defendant.  As a result of the presumption, plaintiffs can assert
any securities claim as a class action.

In Halliburton, the Supreme Court considered a significant
challenge to the long-standing presumption in response to
Halliburton's argument that it should be overturned.  If the Court
agreed, the case was forecast to be "the end of the securities
class action as we know it."

The Supreme Court rejected Halliburton's "academic debates,"
recognizing Basic's underlying logic that requiring every
individual plaintiff to provide direct proof of reliance imposes
an unrealistic burden.  The Court did, however, make the
presumption a rebuttable one during the certification phase rather
than forcing defendants to wait until after certification to raise
the issue during the merits phase.  As a result, corporate
defendants can be expected to incur significantly higher upfront
costs during the class certification stage, specifically including
expert fees to prove market efficiency.

Post-Halliburton, corporate policyholders should inspect their D&O
policies to ensure the coverage for defense costs extends to
expert fees for class certification "event studies."  If the
policy currently in effect does not provide this coverage, an
endorsement may be available.  First to the market last spring in
anticipation of the Halliburton decision, AIG offers an
endorsement providing coverage for early event study expenses,
with no retention, to "head off class certification" early in the
game.

Exponential increase in IPOs in 2014

The past year has seen the most IPO filings in the U.S since 2004.
The health care sector had the greatest number of offerings,
raising $9.9 billion.  The technology sector came in second in
total number of IPOs, but raised almost five times as much as the
health care sector ($50.2 billion), mostly on the strength of the
Chinese e-commerce firm, Alibaba.

This uptick in IPOs leads to increased exposure for securities
litigation, particularly when lofty initial stock prices fizzle.
In 2014, lawsuits related to alleged misrepresentations in IPO
documents comprised roughly 5 percent of securities lawsuits
filed.  Any company with an IPO on the horizon, therefore, should
be cognizant of roadshow liability and "failure to launch" claims.

Another potential concern involves pending regulations on
crowdfunding, a popular financing source for start-ups to raise
funds from non-accredited investors through websites such as
Kickstarter.com or indiegogo.com.  Material misrepresentations and
omissions made on these sites may be governed by federal
securities laws, creating additional potential for D&O liability.


ILLINOIS: Health Insurance Refund Scheduled for June 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
State Journal-Register reports that state retirees entitled to
refunds of their state-subsidized health insurance premiums should
see the money in June under a refund schedule approved by the
court.

The schedule, which will also determine how much lawyers involved
in the various lawsuits should be paid, calls for refunds to be
paid by June 15.

"What it means is that no later than June 15, 2015, the folks who
have had money withheld by the state for health insurance premiums
will get their refunds," said John Myers, one of the attorneys who
filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the premiums.

If the schedule comes off without any delays, it will put an end
to the retiree insurance premium issue about two years after the
state began charging them as a way to reduce insurance costs.  In
July 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that retiree health
insurance benefits are protected by the state Constitution and the
state could not charge premiums to those previously exempt based
on their years of service at retirement.

Retirees were charged premiums for their state-subsidized health
insurance of 1 percent a month of their retirement benefits if
they were covered by Medicare and 2 percent if they were not.

Premiums paid by members of the State Employees Retirement System
were held in an escrow account pending the outcome of court
challenges.  Premiums charged to members of the other retirement
systems were not held in escrow, but state officials said they
have money available to make the refunds.

The Department of Central Management Services said on Dec. 29 that
a total of $63 million in premiums was collected from about 90,000
retirees.

(Most members of the Teachers Retirement System receive retiree
health insurance through a separate program and are not covered by
the premium issue.  A comparative handful who are covered will
receive refunds in June).

The amount refunded to retirees will depend in part on how much
the court awards to attorneys involved in challenging the law.
Lawyers must submit information to the court detailing how much
time they spent on the case and their billing rates.  The court
will decide next spring how much should be awarded to the
attorneys for their work.  The fees will be deducted from the pool
of premium money to be refunded and the amount of refunds reduced
accordingly.

The schedule says that by Feb. 9, the retirement systems must mail
notices to their members affected by the premium issue and
possibly entitled to a refund. Members have a chance to opt out of
the class-action settlement if they choose.

"Everybody in the class has the right to come in and object or opt
out of class," Mr. Myers said.  "There's a built-in several months
of delay just in the process of trying to administer a class
action."


INTERNATIONAL PROTECTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Muszynski, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. International Protective Agency, Inc., a
Domestic Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-10406 (N.D. Ill., December
29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

International Protective Agency, Inc. provides security Services
for its clientele in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


JASON DIAMOND: Faces Suit in Florida Alleging TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Salcedo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. The Law Offices of Jason A. Diamond, P.A., d/b/a The
Traffic Ticket Team, a Florida professional association, Case No.
0:14-cv-62961-WPD (S.D. Fla., December 30, 2014) seeks relief
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE,WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: mark@pathtojustice.com
                  seth@pathtojustice.com
                  steve@pathtojustice.com

               - and -

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accuses of Using Deceptive Packaging
-------------------------------------------------------
Corin Hoggard, writing for ABC30, reports that tricking consumers
will cost the makers of Band-Aids, baby shampoo, and Ben Gay
$506,000 after Fresno County prosecutors caught them in the act.

"It's obvious this tactic works because major manufacturers are
doing it," said ABC30 legal analyst Tony Capozzi.

Johnson & Johnson is accused of using deceptive packaging
amounting to fraud against people in California.

Fresno County prosecutors say Johnson & Johnson and Neutrogena
have been misleading customers into believing they were getting
more of a product than they really were by using false bottoms or
false sides in their packaging.

A stroll down the aisles of any grocery store will reveal dozens
of Johnson & Johnson products.  From the signature baby shampoo to
Tylenol for pain relief or Rogaine to stop hair loss, the company
sold $71 billion worth of products in 2013.  But Fresno's district
attorney says Johnson & Johnson has been breaking the law to sell
products in California.  Objects in their boxes may be smaller
than they appear.

"The fact that the product -- the box or the container -- looks
bigger is going to attract the eye of the buyer and it's going to
be grabbed quickly and thrown into the shopping cart," Mr. Capozzi
said.

Fresno's DA's office teamed up with prosecutors in five other
counties and the ag department to evaluate packaging.  As Action
News reported in October, they did the same thing with CVS
products -- forcing the pharmacy to pay almost a quarter million
dollars.  Johnson & Johnson is paying more than twice as much for
its violations.  The money goes to the counties -- Fresno, Yolo,
Shasta, San Joaquin, Sacramento and Contra Costa -- but
Mr. Capozzi says it's not a class action -- consumers won't
directly receive anything.

"What it is is an action by the DA on behalf of society as a whole
to stop a deceptive practice by certain manufacturers," Mr.
Capozzi said.

Consumer experts say the deception usually has to be obvious and
repetitive for prosecutors to take action.  The DA who negotiated
this deal for two years tells us the goal was to protect people
from bogus boxes and plastic containers, as well as to reduce
environmental waste.

Johnson & Johnson has two years to repackage its products
distributed anywhere in California.  A company spokesperson sent
us this response after our story aired:

"Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies has resolved a dispute with
several counties in California related to the packaging of various
consumer products.  Our goal is always to provide a better
consumer experience, and we continually evaluate packaging over
the course of a product's life cycle.  We have already updated
packaging for some products with additional changes to be
introduced over the next two years."


JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: February 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the USDC for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of investors who purchased Jumei International Holding
Limited securities between its May 16, 2014 Initial Public
Offering and November 20, 2014.

For more information, click here:
http://zlk.9nl.com/jumei-international-jmei

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Jumei made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) it was changing its revenue model by transitioning away from
marketplace services to merchandise sales; (b) this transition
posted a significant risk to Jumei's previously successful
financial performance; (c) and Jumei was not expanding its
marketplace services as claimed.

If you suffered a loss in Jumei you have until February 10, 2015
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/jumei-international-jmei

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  Its attorneys prosecute
securities lawsuits involving financial fraud, representing
investors both large and small throughout the nation.


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Accused of Defrauding Customers on Discounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kohl's Department Stores
defrauded customers about imaginary discounts, with bogus "compare
at" prices, a class action claims in Plymouth County Court.


LANDRY'S INC: Faces "Griffith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Griffith, Jonathan Blocher, Annette Rodriguez, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Landry's, Inc.,
CHLN, Inc. d/b/a/ Chart House f/k/a Landry's Seafood House, Case
No. 8:14-cv-03213 (M.D. Fla., December 29, 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 Landry's Seafood House restaurants
in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
      Suite 200, 100 Cambridge St
      Boston, MA 02114
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (619) 994-5801

         - and -

      Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq.
      Sam Jones Smith, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      Suite 300, 442 W Kennedy Blvd
      Tampa, FL 33606
      Telephone: (813) 253-2010
      Facsimile: (813) 254-8391
      E-mail: ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com
              ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com


LEAR CORP: March 10 Auto-Parts Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS IN AUTO-PARTS PRICE-FIXING CLASS ACTIONS

Between January 1999 and December 2014, did you or your company:

(1) Purchase and/or lease a new or used automotive vehicle in
Canada or for import into Canada; and/or
(2) Purchase Automotive Wire Harness Systems and/or Air Bags, Seat
Belts, Steering Wheels and/or safety electronic systems for
installation in an automotive vehicle (collectively "Occupant
Safety Systems")?

If so, you might be affected by one or more of the following
settlements:

(1) in the Canadian Automotive Wire Harness class action with Lear
Corporation and Kyungshin-Lear Sales and Engineering,
LLC for $612,500; and
(2) in the Canadian Occupant Safety Systems class action with TRW
Automotive Holdings Corp., TRW Automotive Inc., and TRW
Deutschland Holding GmbH ("TRW") for $850,000.

The settlements are not admission of liability, wrongdoing or
fault by Lear Corporation, Kyungshin-Lear Sales and Engineering,
LLC or TRW.

The settlements require court approval in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec.  Motions to approve the settlement will be
heard by the Ontario Court on March 10, 2015, the British Columbia
Court on March 23, 2015, and the Quebec Court on April 16, 2015.

Settlement class members may express their views about the
proposed settlement to the courts.  If you wish to do so, you must
act by February 27, 2015.

Settlement class members have the right to exclude themselves from
the class proceedings ("opt-out").  If you wish to opt-out of
these proceedings, you must submit a request to opt-out postmarked
no later than February 20, 2015.

For more information, visit us at www.classaction.ca/autoparts or
contact us by email autopartsclassaction@siskinds.com or call
1-800-461-6166 ext. 2446.


MCS CLAIM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Izabella Leblanc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MCS Claim Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-08050 (D.N.J., December 29, 2014), seeks to redress the
Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

MCS Claim Services, Inc. is a collection agency with its principal
office located at 123 Frost Street, Suite 150, Westbury, New York
11590-5027.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Robbins Arroyo Investigates Fosun Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are
investigating the proposed acquisition of Meadowbrook Insurance
Group, Inc. by Fosun International Limited.  On December 30, 2014,
the two companies announced the signing of a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Meadowbrook shareholders will receive
$8.65 for each share of Meadowbrook common stock.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
http://is.gd/2oLhRv

Is the Proposed Acquisition Best for Meadowbrook and Its
Shareholders?

Robbins Arroyo LLP's investigation focuses on whether the board of
directors at Meadowbrook is undertaking a fair process to obtain
maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders.

As an initial matter, the $8.65 merger consideration represents a
premium of only 21% based on Meadowbrook's closing price on
December 30, 2014.  This premium is significantly below the
average one-day premium of nearly 30% for comparable transactions
within the past five years.

Further, on November 5, 2014, Meadowbrook released its earnings
results for the nine months ended September 30, 2014, reporting
strong results.  Specifically, Meadowbrook reported net income of
$21.1 million, or $0.42 per diluted share, for the nine months
ended September 30, 2014, compared to a net loss of $100.5
million, or $2.01 per diluted share, for the same period in 2013.
In addition, Meadowbrook reported net operating income of $15.1
million, or $0.30 per diluted share, for the nine months ended
September 30, 2014, compared to net operating loss of $103.1
million, or $2.07 per diluted share, for the nine months ended
September 30, 2013.  Meadowbrook's reported sales beat Bloomberg
consensus analyst estimates during each of the last four quarters,
further underscoring the company's recent strong performance.

Commenting on the results, Robert S. Cubbin, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Meadowbrook, stated: "We are pleased with our
progress and continued stabilization in our overall loss reserves.
We have continued to exercise discipline in writing only business
that we believe meets our profitability targets . . . Our results
reflect the positive impact of our actions to improve our
underwriting performance and drive overall profitability as
reflected by the improvement in our loss ratio.  We remain focused
on improving our risk profile, stabilizing our loss reserves and
strengthening our capital position, while at the same time
identifying opportunities to reduce our expense ratio going
forward."

Free white paper helps you show seniors Whole Life is the answer.

In light of these facts, Robbins Arroyo LLP is examining
Meadowbrook's board of directors' decision to sell the company now
rather than allow shareholders to continue to participate in the
company's continued success and future growth prospects.

Meadowbrook shareholders have the option to file a class action
lawsuit to ensure the board of directors obtains the best possible
price for shareholders and the disclosure of material information.
Meadowbrook shareholders interested in information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
its practice in in securities litigation and shareholder rights
law.  The law firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Suit in Cal. Over Defective Seat Heaters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mercedes-Benz seat heaters in
model years 2000-2014 may spark, overheat and catch fire, a class
action claims in California Federal Court.


MERCK: RD Legal Sues Two Lawyers Over Class Action Funding Loan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Lynn, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that a
Cresskill company that lends money to lawyers has sued two
California attorneys, saying they haven't taken any steps to repay
debts totaling almost $6 million.

RD Legal Funding Partners filed suit recently in federal district
court in Newark against lawyers Mel Powell of Beverly Hills and
Jeffrey Bogert, formerly of Santa Monica, saying that the two and
another lawyer borrowed more than $12 million to finance class-
action personal-injury lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies
that make osteoporosis drugs.  The lawyers sued New Jersey-based
Merck, which makes Fosamax, as well as Procter & Gamble, which
makes Actonel, and Novartis, which makes Aredia and Zometa.

In such suits, lawyers are usually paid only after a settlement or
court verdict is reached, so they sometimes borrow money to
finance their costs during cases that can last years.  In its
lawsuit, RD Legal Funding said it is owed $26.7 million, including
the $12 million in principal, from loans made to Mr. Powell,
Mr. Bogert and New York lawyer Daniel Osborn.  The money, which
was advanced through a number of agreements, carried an interest
rate of up to 24 percent, according to the suit.

The lawsuit says Messrs. Powell and Bogert have neither repaid any
of their share of the money nor made arrangements to repay it,
although the Actonel litigation has been settled and the lawyers
have already received more than $200,000 in legal fees.  Moreover,
the suit says, they are likely to receive "substantially more"
when the Fosamax case's legal fees are distributed in the first
quarter of this year.

Messrs. Powell and Bogert "have blatantly ignored their end of the
bargain," the suit said.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Powell would solicit the clients and
refer them to Mesrs. Bogert and Osborn.  According to a statement
by Osborn filed in this case, Powell was to receive 40 percent of
the legal fees and Messrs. Bogert and Osborn would split 60
percent.  Mr. Osborn said he sought funding from RD Legal Funding
in 2007, and that Messrs. Powell and Bogert signed agreements with
RD Legal in 2009.  According to the suit, Messrs. Powell and
Bogert agreed to sign over their future legal fees to RD Legal
Funding, up to about $5.9 million, to repay the advances.

In his statement, Mr. Osborn said he is repaying his advance from
RD Legal.

A lawyer for Mr. Powell, Gavin Oppermann of Cherry Hill, declined
to comment on the lawsuit, saying the matter would be resolved
through litigation.  Mr. Bogert, who formerly had his own firm but
now works for another personal-injury firm, did not respond to a
call for comment.  Eric Kanefsky, attorney for RD Legal, also
declined to comment.


MERCHANT SERVICES: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rogers, Rob Munson, Charles Matthews, Lee Green, and Gordon
Markopoulous, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Merchant Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Connect
International, a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-10410 (N.D.
Ill., December 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Merchant Services, Inc. owns and operates a call center in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued for Violating Debt Collection Laws
--------------------------------------------------------
Priscilla Murphy, individually and as class representative for all
others similarly situated v. Midland Funding, LLC, and Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04112-ODE-LTW (N.D. Ga.,
December 30, 2014) is brought for alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ, LLC
          345 West Hancock Avenue
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 350-5900
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


MILWAUKEE, WI: Home-Rule Rights Justify Pension Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------
Home-rule rights justify Milwaukee County's reduction of pension
multipliers mid-employment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled
December 19, reports Molly Willms, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

The 5-2 decision reverses findings by the lower courts that
established pension multipliers as a vested right as soon as they
are enacted, instead of when they are earned.

"In other words, Milwaukee County could so amend the formula and
apply it prospectively because that prospective application does
not 'diminish or impair' benefits accrued from service credits
already earned," Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler wrote for the
majority opinion.

Suzanne Stoker, the lead plaintiff in the class action, had been
hired by Milwaukee in 1982 when the multiplier was 1.5 percent.
When the county raised the multiplier to 2 percent for certain
employees in 2001, it included an opportunity for employees to
receive the higher rate retroactively if they continued their
employment.

Stoker did, but the county entered an agreement with Stoker's
union in 2011 that the multiplier would change to 1.6 percent for
all work performed beginning in 2012.  She and her nurses union
filed suit to have the pension-multiplier reduction declared
invalid.

The action pointed to a 1957 law that says members of the
Milwaukee County Employee Retirement System have a "vested right
. . . to all increases in benefits covered by amendments
subsequent to the date his membership [in MCERS] is effective,"
the opinion states.

"In short, she argues that she is entitled to the most favorable
pension formula available during her employment," Ziegler wrote.

The state Supreme Court agreed with Wisconsin, however, that the
1957 and similar statutes are overruled by the county's right to
home rule guaranteed under a 1965 law.

County ordinances stating benefits are not vested until earned are
thus valid, and benefits can be reduced before they are vested,
the opinion states.

"The amendment did not breach Stoker's contractual right to
retirement system benefits earned and vested because it had
prospective-only application to future service credits not yet
earned," Ziegler wrote

In a scathing dissent joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson,
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley blasted the majority's "narrow focus."

"Rather than addressing the session laws which provide a clear
answer to our inquiry and dictate protection of the employees'
benefits, the majority shifts the focus of its analysis to
language in the Milwaukee County General Ordinance," Bradley
wrote.  "It is only by repeatedly ignoring the language of the
governing session laws that the majority is able to conclude that
the county may reduce the pension multiplier, thereby dealing a
blow to the rights of the employees.

"I conclude instead, as did a unanimous court of appeals, that the
session laws mean what they say: employees have a vested right to
their benefits when they accept employment with the county and the
county is not permitted to diminish or impair those benefits,"
Bradley added.

The Legislature in 1945 stated that rights are vested the moment
employees are hired and thus become a member of the retirement
system, Bradley said.

"It is hard to imagine how much clearer the legislature could have
been," she wrote.

"In sum, the majority's attempt to avoid the language of the
governing session laws and shift the focus to the language in the
ordinance is unpersuasive," the dissent concludes.  "It turns a
blind eye to the clear language of the session laws which must
trump the amendment to the county ordinance."

The Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner is represented by:

          Alan M. Levy, Esq.
          LINDNER & MARSACK, S.C.
          411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1800
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-4498
          Telephone: (414) 273-3910
          Facsimile: (414) 273-0522
          E-mail: alevy@lindner-marsack.com

The Defendant-Co-appellant-Petitioner is represented by:

          Beth Ermatinger Hanan, Esq.
          GASS WEBER MULLINS LLC,
          309 North Water Street
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 223-3300
          Facsimile: (414) 224-6116
          E-mail: hanan@gasswebermullins.com

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Jeffrey P. Sweetland, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 E Erie St, #210
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: jsweetland@hq-law.com

The case is Suzanne Stoker and Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and
Health Professionals, Local 5001, AFT, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs-
Respondents v. Milwaukee County, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner,
Milwaukee County Pension Board, Defendant-Co-Appellant-Petitioner,
Case No. 2012AP2466, in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.


MRS BPO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Kaufman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-07564
(E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL SECURITY: Illegally Seizes Net Exchanges, Advocates Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Security Agency is illegally searching and seizing
Americans' Internet communications, privacy advocates told a
federal judge at a hearing on December 19, according to Arvin
Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

At proceedings before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation battled government attorneys for
partial summary judgment in the class action domestic spying case
Jewel v. NSA.

Lead plaintiff Carolyn Jewel filed the case six years ago,
claiming the government acquires AT&T customers' email and other
data using surveillance devices attached to the company's network.
A federal judge dismissed the case in 2010 for lack of standing,
but that decision was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals in 2011.

EFF Attorney Richard Wiebe outlined the organization's claim that
the NSA searches emails and other data from AT&T customers using a
method called "Upstream," and argued that the alleged surveillance
is unconstitutional.

Justice Department attorney James Gilligan countered that the
plaintiffs don't have enough information about the NSA's
classified spying techniques to make a valid case.

EFF moved for partial summary judgment in July, asking White to
find that the government is violating the Fourth Amendment --
though it did not seek a remedy for the alleged violation.  The
government made a cross motion in September, saying the plaintiffs
have no standing and cannot establish it "without the risk of
grave damage to national security."

The case showcases the challenge of litigating matters that engulf
both individual liberties and national security.  White said that
he is being "very careful" in court not to disclose the classified
material that's been submitted by the government.

The 2008 lawsuit stems from a revelation two years earlier by
whistleblower Mark Klein, a former AT&T communications technician,
who said the Internet service provider was routing web data to a
secret NSA-controlled location in San Francisco.

According to the EFF, the government combs through this data
through a process that violates citizens' rights.  Upstream works
in four stages, plaintiffs' attorneys say:

Stage 1: Communications are collected.

Stage 2: Communications are filtered to exclude domestic
communications, but the filtering is imprecise and some domestic
data leaks through.

Stage 3: Computers scan this data for troublesome and potentially
terrorist-related material.

Stage 4: Flagged material is stored in a government database.

In court, Gilligan said the government doesn't contest that a
program called Upstream does "acquire unintentionally a very small
number of domestic communications."  But there's no evidence that
AT&T customers are victims in any alleged search and seizure, he
said.

And if Upstream works the way plaintiffs say it does, information
is scanned and destroyed in "milliseconds" by computers -- not a
search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, he added.

Wiebe countered that citizens are constitutionally protected from
governmental intrusion "and it doesn't matter if that intrusion
happens by a machine or an employee."

The EFF attorney also said the government has not disputed any of
the evidence plaintiffs put forward.

"They haven't said in the public record that they're not
conducting the surveillance or that it doesn't involve AT&T, and I
think that does matter," Wiebe said.  "It is their burden under
summary judgment to come forward with that evidence."


NEVADA HEALTH: Insurance Broker Assesses Status of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Roerink, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reports that Pat Casale,
the Las Vegas health insurance broker, was tireless in his efforts
to aid Nevadans during last year's disastrous rollout of Nevada
Health Link, the online insurance marketplace selling health care
plans offered under the Affordable Care Act.  Mr. Casale worked
with state officials in multiple agencies, as well as the
governor's office, to ensure his clients were covered.

Consumers -- some with life-threatening diseases -- came to him to
enroll for insurance but were thwarted by faulty enrollment
software build by Xerox, the tech contractor for the health link.
Others paid for insurance but didn't receive coverage.

This open enrollment period -- which started in mid-November and
ends in February -- things are different for Nevada Health Link
and Mr. Casale.  The state ditched Xerox and plugged into a new IT
system run by the federal government.  And Mr. Casale is signing
up customers without suffering spikes in his blood pressure.

Mr. Casale spoke with the Las Vegas Sun about what insurance
brokers do, the latest open enrollment period and not getting
paid.

Compared to last year, what's the biggest difference you've seen
in open enrollment?

"The computer system is working.  I get people enrolled in less
than 30 minutes. People are getting the plans I expect them to
get," Mr. Casale said.

"The state didn't put out an estimate for how many people would
enroll in plans offered on the exchange."

What's your best guess?

"All said and done, in the end of February between 40,000 and
44,000 on the high end.  Thirty-two thousand to 36,000 on the
medium end, and 30,000 on the low end," Mr. Casale said.

Do brokers charge consumers for using their services to enroll for
health care plans offered under the Affordable Care Act?

"Not at all.

"The average consumer may not know how an insurance broker can
help them enroll for subsidized plans offered under the Affordable
Care Act," Mr. Casale said.

What's your main role?

"My main role is to ensure the client buys the best plan for them
and maximizes tax credits offered," Mr. Casale said.

"Because of the faulty Xerox software, insurance companies didn't
pay you and other Nevada insurance brokers for your services
during the first open enrollment.  You're in a class action suit
to recoup damages," Mr. Casale said.

What's the latest?

"We are starting to get some of the money.  Insurance companies
are paying us going forward. But we lost time and money.  For the
first six months of the last enrollment, we didn't get paid for a
lot of services.  I estimate that I lost at least $25,000 to
$30,000.  It's the first time in my career that I didn't get paid
for work.  If I wrote a life insurance policy and the commission
is $1,000 when that policy gets issued, I get paid.  With health
insurance, you get paid at a month to month rate.  This year that
didn't happen," Mr. Casale said.

You're originally from New York. What brought you to the desert to
broker insurance?

"The broker part wasn't part of the plan.  I came to Nevada
because the state allows you to be able to own a home and offers a
favorable tax system.  The American dream was here," Mr. Casale
said.


OVER EASY: "Beastly" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dori Beasley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Over Easy Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00366 (E.D. Tenn., December 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Over Easy Management, Inc. owns and operates Huddle House chain of
restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC
      Bank of America Building
      550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 247-0081
      E-mail: dawn@gregcolemanlaw.com


PACIFICARE OF NEVADA: Patients Can Make Negligence Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Sean Whaley, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that
patients who were exposed to unsafe injection practices at some
health care facilities in Southern Nevada can make a claim for
negligence even though they have so far tested negative for
hepatitis C or other illnesses, the Nevada Supreme Court said on
Dec. 31.

A three-justice panel of the court reversed a Clark County
District judge who had ruled against Susan and Jack Sadler and
others in similar circumstances.

The court said even in the absence of a present physical injury,
those patients who have so far tested negative for hepatitis B,
hepatitis C and HIV, or who have yet to be tested, may claim
negligence based on the need to undergo medical monitoring.

"This is a huge ruling allowing for medical monitoring in the
state of Nevada, which was unsettled prior to this case," said Las
Vegas attorney George West, who along with Craig Marquiz are
representing the Sadlers and thousands of other Southern Nevadans
in the class.

"It's a great result and good law for the state of Nevada," Mr.
Marquiz said.

The potential cost to the HMO should the Sadlers and others
ultimately prevail is still being determined, Mr. Marquiz said.

Unsafe practices at several colonoscopy clinics in Southern Nevada
were identified in 2008 and ultimately resulted in one of the
worst hepatitis C outbreaks in U.S. history.  One of the main
figures in the health care was Dr. Dipak Desai, who owned several
endoscopy clinics.  Dr. Desai was convicted in 2013 of 27 criminal
counts and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of
parole after 18 years.

The Sadlers filed a complaint against the health maintenance
organization PacifiCare of Nevada, claiming the company failed to
perform its duty to establish and implement a quality assurance
program to oversee the medical providers within its network.

PacifiCare argued that the complaint failed to state a negligence
claim on the ground that they had not alleged an "actual injury,"
such as testing positive for a blood-borne illness.

The District Court ruled for PacifiCare, finding that the claims
were based on a risk of exposure to infected blood, which the
court said was insufficient to allege an injury.

But the Supreme Court panel, in a decision written by Justice
James Hardesty, found that the Sadlers' complaint adequately
alleged an injury in the form of exposure to unsafe injection
practices that caused a need for ongoing medical monitoring to
detect any latent diseases that might result from those unsafe
practices.  The court ordered the class action lawsuit back to
District Court for further proceedings.

The Sadlers, and others similarly situated, filed the lawsuit on
July 8, 2008, against PacifiCare for negligence due to what their
attorneys have argued is PacifiCare's failure to conduct mandatory
annual quality medical assurance reviews of its providers,
including the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, the Desert
Shadow Endoscopy Center, the Gastroenterology Center of Nevada,
and the Spanish Hills Endoscopy Center.

The businesses were at the center of the 2008 hepatitis outbreak
in Clark County that identified over 40,000 patients who were
subjected to unsafe injection practices that potentially exposed
them to debilitating and life-threatening viral blood-borne
diseases.

The clinics were found to be reusing syringes and anesthesia vials
with multiple patients.

Hepatitis c leads to inflammation of the liver and in the long
term can lead to severe liver damage, liver cancer, and liver
failure.

According to the appeal filed on behalf of the class,
investigators discovered over 100 confirmed cases of hepatitis C
in persons who were patients of the endoscopy centers during that
time period in what has been called one of the worst hepatitis C
outbreaks in the U.S.  The Southern Nevada Health District along
with the CDC directed that 63,000 patients undergo diagnostic
testing to determine if they contracted any diseases from the
unsafe practices.

In its brief challenging the appeal, attorneys for PacifiCare said
the Sadlers have not alleged that they have suffered any physical
injuries as a result of any potential exposure.

"Their only allegation of injury is that they might have been
exposed to hepatitis C as patients at ECSN," said the court
filing.  "The question in this case is thus whether the mere
possibility of coming in contact with a disease is an injury
cognizable under the law of negligence."

The Sadlers allege that PacifiCare violated Nevada's quality
assurance regulations applicable to health maintenance
organizations, and that if the HMO had complied with those
regulations, the improper practices at the endoscopy centers would
have been discovered and stopped.

As a result, they want PacifiCare to pay for future medical
monitoring costs.


PARADE ENTERPRISES: Faces "Tiko" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tiko, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Parade Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-08084
(D.N.J., December 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Parade Enterprises, LLC owns and operates 45 Burger King franchise
restaurants in the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      560 Sylvan Avenue
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Telephone: (201) 567-7377
      Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
      E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com


PATH: Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that mobile
social network Path can't immediately appeal a decision allowing a
consumer to proceed with a potential class-action lawsuit over
unwanted text messages, a panel of the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals has ruled.

The appellate judges didn't give a reason for their ruling.

The move lets stand a prior ruling by U.S. District Court Judge
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in the Northern District of Illinois, who
allowed state resident Kevin Sterk to pursue allegations that Path
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  That law
prohibits companies from using automated dialers to send users
text message ads.

Sterk alleged in his complaint that he received a text message
stating that another person -- Path user Elizabeth Howell --
wanted to show him photos on the service. The text also contained
a link to a site where Sterk could register to join the social
network.

Path argued that the case should be thrown out on the ground that
its system doesn't use "automated dialers."  The company said its
system only sends SMS messages to people whose phone numbers were
provided by users.  Path contended that "human intervention" --
users' uploading of their friends' numbers -- means its system
isn't an automated dialer.

After Mr. Der-Yeghiayan rejected Path's argument, the company
asked the 7th Circuit to agree to hear an immediate appeal.

"The decision below is wrong and warrants immediate review," Path
unsuccessfully argued in its appellate papers.  The company added
that Mr. Der-Yeghiayan's decision marked a "dramatic expansion" of
the federal telemarketing law, and could pose new legal risks for
anyone who sends text messages.

Path isn't the only company that allegedly tried to grow its
network by spamming people.  Lyft also is facing a potential
class-action lawsuit for allegedly running an "aggressive
marketing campaign" that sends people unwanted SMS messages.

That complaint, filed earlier this year by Washington state
resident Kenneth Wright, centers on Lyft's "invite friends"
program, which allows Lyft users to send SMS invitations to their
contacts.

Lyft and Wright are currently trying to resolve their battle
through mediation, according to papers filed with the U.S.
District Court in the Western District of Washington.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: City of Providence Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Brandimarte, writing for Reuters, reports that Brazil's
state-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA and some of its
executives were hit with a U.S. class action lawsuit by investors
in $98 billion of the company's securities over an alleged
kickback and bribery scheme.

Petrobras has already been sued by several U.S. investors who
bought American Depositary Receipts sold by the company in New
York.

The latest case was filed on Dec. 24 in Manhattan's federal court
by the Labaton Sucharow law firm on behalf of the city of
Providence, Rhode Island, which invested in Petrobras.

The lawsuit proposes to cover $98 billion of securities Petrobras
sold since 2010, and any judgment or settlement would benefit the
investors who purchased those securities.

Allegations include that the company made material misstatements
about the value of its assets in bond offering documents.  Such an
allegation does not require proof that misstatements were made
knowingly, and allows plaintiffs to name as defendants the
Brazilian and international banks that managed the sale of those
bonds.

Unlike the previous class actions by ADR holders, the latest
lawsuit also names as defendants Petrobras executives, including
Chief Executive Maria das Gracas Foster.

In Rio de Janeiro, a Petrobras spokeswoman said the company had
not received a citation from the reported class action suit filed
on Christmas Eve.  So far 39 people have been indicted on charges
that include corruption, money laundering and racketeering in the
Petrobras graft scheme that allegedly funneled money to political
parties, including Rousseff's Worker's Party and its allies in
Congress.

On Dec. 22, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said there was no
evidence that Petrobras senior management was involved in the
graft scandal.

Petrobras said it will scale back spending to avoid having to
issue debt next year.  It cannot issue new debt until it releases
third-quarter earnings, which were delayed after auditor
PriceWaterhouseCoopers refused to certify them owing to the
corruption scandal.


PFIZER INC: Removes "Sweigart" Suit to New York District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Sweigart v. Pfizer Inc., et al., Case No.
13631/2014, was removed from the Supreme Court of State of New
York, County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Brooklyn).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07552 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Minor Plaintiff developed birth
defects as a result of the Mother Plaintiff's ingestion of the
prescription medication Zoloft (sertraline hydrochloride) during
her pregnancy with the Minor Plaintiff.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Pfizer failed to warn of and misrepresented to consumers,
including the Plaintiffs, physicians, and the medical community,
the risks of congenital birth defects allegedly associated with
use of Zoloft (or sertraline) during pregnancy.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Izabella Leblanc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-08108-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., December 30, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RCS CAPITAL: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grady Scott Weston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RCS Capital Corporation, Nicholas S.
Schorsch, Michael Weil, William M. Kahane, and Brian D. Jones,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10136 (S.D.N.Y., December 29, 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.

RCS Capital Corporation is a full-service investment firm
expressly focused on the individual retail investor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Telephone: (212)661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              fmcconville@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312)377-1181
      Facsimile: (312)377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


RCS CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky on Dec. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of investors who purchased RCS Capital Corporation
securities between February 12, 2014 and October 31, 2014.

For more information, click here:
http://zlk.9nl.com/rcs-capital-rcap

The complaint alleges that RCAP made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. financial statements were materially
false and misleading as a result of a massive accounting scandal
perpetrated and concealed by senior management; (b) the Company's
announced acquisition of Cole Capital from ARCP was at serious
risk due to the fraud, as was its revenue stream from its
relationship with ARCP; (c) as a result, the Company's public
statements pertaining to its financial position and its
acquisition of Cole Capital were materially false and misleading.

On October 29, 2014, ARCP disclosed that its financial statements
were materially inaccurate and must be restated, and admitted to
knowing of certain errors it knowingly did not correct.

If you suffered a loss in RCAP you have until February 27, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/rcs-capital-rcap

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys
prosecute securities litigation involving financial fraud,
representing investors throughout the nation in securities and
shareholder lawsuits.


REALMARK PROPERTY: Settlement Not Calculable At This Time
---------------------------------------------------------
Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership - VIA said in its
Form 10-K/A Amendment #1 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 31, 2014, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013, that the Partnership, as a nominal defendant,
the General Partners of the Partnership and of affiliated public
partnerships, (the "Realmark Partnerships") and the officers and
directors of the Corporate General Partner, as defendants, had
been involved in a class action litigation at the state court
level regarding the payment of fees and other management issues.

On August 29, 2001, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Settlement"). On October 4, 2001, the Court
issued an "Order Preliminary Approving Settlement" (the "Hearing
Order") and on November 29, 2001, the court issued an "Order and
Final Judgment Approving Settlement and Awarding Fees and
Expenses" and dismissing the complaints with prejudice. The
Settlement provided, among other things, that:

     -- The payable to the general partners and/or their
affiliates by the Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership
VI-A at March 31, 2001, in the amount of $481,598, cease to accrue
interest.

     -- All of the Realmark Partnerships' properties be disposed
of. The general partners will continue to have primary authority
to dispose of the Partnerships' properties. If either (i) the
general partners have not sold or contracted to sell 50% of the
Partnerships' properties (by value) by April 2, 2002 or (ii) the
general partners have not sold or contracted to sell 100% of the
Partnerships' properties by September 29, 2002, then the primary
authority to dispose of the Partnerships' properties will pass to
a sales agent designated by plaintiffs' counsel and approved by
the Court. On October 4, 2002, the Court appointed a sales agent
to work with the general partners to continue to sell the
Partnership's remaining properties.

The settlement also provided for the payment by the Partnerships
of fees to the plaintiffs' attorneys. These payments, which are
not calculable at this time but may be significant, are payable
out of the proceeds from the sale of all of the properties owned
by all of the Realmark Partnerships, following the sale of the
last of these properties in each partnership. Plaintiffs' counsel
will receive 15% of the amount by which the sales proceeds
distributable to limited partners in each partnership exceeds the
value of the limited partnership units in each partnership (based
on the weighted average of the units' trading prices on the
secondary market as reported by Partnership Spectrum for the
period May through June 2001). In no event may the increase on
which the fees are calculated exceed 100% of the market value of
the units as calculated above.


REHABCARE GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, R. Fellen Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
R. Fellen, Inc., a California corporation, d/b/a Sunnyside
Convalescent Hospital, and Dakota Medical, Inc., a California
corporation, d/b/a GlenOaks Convalescent Hospital, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rehabcare Group,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Cannon & Associates, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, d/b/a Polaris Group, Case
No. 1:14-cv-02081 (E.D. Cal., December 29, 2014), arises out of
the Defendants' practice of blasting over 2.4 million
transmissions of illegal junk faxes to long-term care facilities
throughout the country.

The Defendants are providers of rehabilitation services, including
physical, occupational and speech-language therapies

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald R. Fischbach, Esq.
      Mark D. Kruthers, Esq.
      DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED
      8080 N. Palm Avenue, Third Floor
      Fresno, CA 93711
      Telephone: (559) 432-4500
      E-mail: dfischbach@dowlingaaron.com
              mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com

         - and -

      C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
      Eric M. Kennedy, Esq.
      PAYNE & FEARS LLP
      801 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1150
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 439-9911
      E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com
              emk@paynefears.com

         - and -

      Scott Z. Zimmermann, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT Z. ZIMMERMANN
      601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2610
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 452-6509
      E-mail: szimm@zkcf.com


REVENUE ASSISTANCE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Knox, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Revenue Assistance Corporation d/b/a Revenue Group,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07561-PKC-JO (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RJ REYNOLDS: Balks at Judge's Order to Admit They Lied to Public
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that tobacco companies say they are
being forced by a federal judge to inaccurately call themselves
unscrupulous villains who continue to deceive the American public.

In an appeals court filing on Jan. 7, the industry says the
statements ordered by the judge in a government lawsuit would only
trigger public anger against the companies and should be scrapped.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the nation's largest
cigarette makers to publicly admit they had lied for decades about
the dangers of smoking, and to publicize a federal court's
conclusion that Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and
Philip Morris USA deliberately deceived the public.

The companies say the statement is overbroad and misleading.
Arguments in the case will be heard on Feb. 23.


ROMA FOOD: Removes "Wilder" Suit to New Jersey District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wilder, et al. v. Roma Food
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. MID-L-6047-14, was removed
from the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division - Middlesex
County, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
08123-JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Meyers, Esq.
          MEYERS FRIED-GRODIN, LLP
          520 Speedwell Avenue, Suite 210
          Morris Plains, NJ 07950
          Telephone: (973) 944-8069
          Facsimile: (973) 539-0613
          E-mail: jmeyers@mfglegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James M. McDonnell, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          220 Headquarters Plaza
          East Tower, 7th Floor
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 538-6890
          E-mail: mcdonnej@jacksonlewis.com


RAYONIER INC: January 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 31 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of investors who purchased Rayonier,
Inc. securities between April 29, 2014 and November 10, 2014.

Click here to learn about the case:
http://docs.wongesq.com/RYN-Info-Request-Form-547
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies.

On November 3, 2014, the Company announced in an SEC filing that
it had understated its depletion expense in cost of goods sold by
approximately $2 million for the periods ended March 31, 2014 and
June 30, 2014.  As a result of this understatement, the Company
further acknowledged a corresponding overstatement in those
periods of income for continuing operations of $1.9 million and $2
million respectively.  The Company cited a "material weakness in
Rayonier's internal controls related to merchantable timber
inventory" as the overstatements' cause.

If you suffered a loss in Rayonier you have until January 12, 2015
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com  by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit
http://docs.wongesq.com/RYN-Info-Request-Form-547

Vincent Wong, Esq. represents investors in securities litigations
involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights.

CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq.39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel: 212-425-1140
         Fax: 866-699-3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com


SLM CORP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Eileen Wise, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SLM Corporation, Navient Corporation and
Navient Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Sallie Mae, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
01426-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill., December 30, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM LLC
          5215 Kingwood Drive
          St. Louis, MO 63123
          Telephone: (217) 710-1403
          E-mail: brandon.wise@thewisefirm.com


STRYKER ENERGY: "Estes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Estes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stryker Energy Directional Services, LLC, and Stryker
Energy Services, Inc. f/k/a Stryker Directional Services, Case No.
4:14-cv-03707 (S.D. Tex., December 29, 2014), seeks to recover the
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oilfield service company with
significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUSHI NANIWA: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Juarez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Sushi Naniwa, Inc. and Jiann Wen Bee, Case
No. 1:14-cv-10416 (N.D. Ill., December 29, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA CORP: "Cronin" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cronin, Inc., et al., v.
Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04084, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Iowa to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02651-JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Lundberg, Esq.
          600 Fourth Street, Suite 906
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Telephone: (712) 234-3030
          Facsimile: (712) 234-3034
          E-mail: paul@lundberglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
          2500 City Center Square
          1100 Main Street
          vP.O. Box 26188
          Kansas City, MO 64196
          Telephone: (816) 421-6620
          E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles T. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON & PRAHL, LLP.
          25043 Little Water Lane
          P.O. Box 767
          Custer, SD 57730
          Telephone: (605) 673-5223
          E-mail: tpatterson@patterprahl.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Mindy B. Pava, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St. N.W., Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
                  mpava@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
                  earonowitz@gelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matt M. Dummermuth, Esq.
          WHITAKER, HAGENOW & GUSTOFF LLP
          305 Second Avenue, SE, Suite 202
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
          Telephone: (319) 849-8390
          Facsimile: (515) 864-0963
          E-mail: MDummermuth@whgllp.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Lanier" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lanier, et al. v. Syngenta AG, et
al., Case No. 7:14-cv-00262, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02650-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (336) 333-9899
          Facsimile: (336) 333-9894


SYNGENTA CORP: Rooks Farm Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Rooks Farm Service, Inc., et al.
v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-00261, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-02649-JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Shaul, Esq.
          W. Dee Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Roman.Shaul@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

          Richard Munday, Esq.
          OXNER, PERMAR & RICHARDSON, PLLC
          1155 Revolution Mill Dr., Studio 4
          Greensboro, NC 27405
          Telephone: (336) 274-4494
          Facsimile: (336) 274-4525
          E-mail: Richard.Munday@oxnerpermarlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Corinne Berry Jones, Esq.
          Gregory G. Holland, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP
          333 North Greene St., Suite 200
          P. O. Box 21927
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 378-5540
          Facsimile: (336) 433-7461
          E-mail: greg.holland@smithmoorelaw.com
                  corinne.jones@smithmoorelaw.com


TALISMAN ENERGY: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Sale of Biz to Repsol
-------------------------------------------------------------
Soo Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Harold N. Kvisle, Christine  Bergevin, Donald J.
Carty, Jonathan Christodoro, Thomas W. Ebbern, Brian M. Levitt,
Samuel J. Merksamer, Lisa A. Stewart, Henry W. Sykes, Peter W.
Tomsett, Michael T. Waites, Charles R. Williamson, Charles M.
Winograd, Talisman Energy Inc., and Repsol S.A., Case No. 4:14-cv-
03710 (S.D. Tex., December 29, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's attempt to sell the Company to Repsol S.A. by means of
an unfair process and for an unfair price.

Talisman Energy Inc. is a Canadian multinational oil and gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Calgary,
Alberta.

Repsol S.A. is an integrated global energy company based in
Madrid, Spain.

The Individual Defendants are offices and directors of Talisman
Energy Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      The Bilek Law Firm LLP
      700 Louisiana, Ste 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720
      Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com


TARGET CORP: Court Dismissed Most Claims in Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge dismissed most consumer-negligence claims
against Target for cybersecurity failures that resulted in a
massive data breach in 2013.

Data from as many as 110 million credit and debit cards used at
Target stores were compromised during the 2013 holiday shopping
season, when hackers made off with names, credit card numbers,
security codes and expiration dates.

Exposure of the breach led Target to offer its cardholders a
year's free subscription to a credit-monitoring and identity-
protection service, as well as a pledge to not hold customers
responsible for fraudulent charges.

Both consumers and financial institutions nevertheless brought
scores of lawsuits, which were soon consolidated before U.S.
District Judge Paul Magnuson in St. Paul, Minn.

Magnuson dismissed the majority of those claims December 18 after
finding that some consumers' states do not permit the remedy they
seek.  While plaintiffs have shown that they suffered pecuniary
damages in the form of unreimbursed late fees, and card-
replacement fees, numerous states do not allow a class action
pursuant of consumer-protection claims.  Therefore, plaintiffs may
not maintain this suit in Delaware, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Alabama,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, South
Carolina, Tennessee, or Utah, according to the ruling.

Further, the majority of states' data-breach notice statutes do
not allow for a private cause of action, but call for Attorney
General enforcement, the court found.  Five states also bar
recovery for purely economic losses under a theory of negligence.

Magnuson did uphold, for now, the plaintiff's "overcharge theory."

"Plaintiffs' second theory is the 'would not have shopped' theory
discussed previously," he wrote.  "This theory contends that, had
Target notified its customers about the data breach in a timely
manner, Plaintiffs would not have shopped at Target and thus any
money Plaintiffs spent at Target after Target knew or should have
known about the breach is money to which Target is not entitled."

Magnuson deemed this theory "plausible" if plaintiffs can
establish that they shopped at Target after the megastore knew or
should have known about the security breach.

The multidistrict litigation is captioned In re: Target
Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. MDL
No. 14-2522 (PAM/JJK), in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.


TOLEDO, OH: Plaintiff Asks High Court to Reconsider Camera Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise G. Callahan, writing for Journal-News, reports that
New Miami's speed cameras hit a bump in the road when a local
judge ruled them wrong, but recent court findings and filings
could change all that.

The Ohio Supreme Court by a narrow majority recently ruled in
Walker v. Toledo the cameras that catch and prompt fines for
speeders and red light runners are legal.  Now one of the lawyers
representing a man who challenged Toledo's speed cameras has asked
the high court to reconsider.

Closer to home, New Miami is also asking Butler County Common
Pleas Michael Sage to change his stance, based on the higher
court's decision.

Sage issued a permanent injunction in February that put the brakes
on the New Miami cameras, because he said the administrative
process erased people's right to due process.  Two Butler County
and two Cincinnati residents sued New Miami over the virtually
automatic $95 speeding tickets.

Wilson Weisenfelder, who represents the village, filed a motion
saying since none of the plaintiffs in the local case went through
the administrative hearing process, they don't have standing --
based on the Supreme Court ruling -- to challenge the cameras.

The high court ruled that the administrative hearings many
jurisdictions use as opposed to municipal court hearings are fine,
but also said the administrative hearings must be exhausted before
judicial remedies can be pursued.

"His (Sage's) decision is now incorrect," Mr. Weisenfelder said.
"His decision flies in the face of what the Supreme Court has just
ruled.  So we are asking him to essentially undo what he did and
to dissolve the injunction."

As an extra measure, Mr. Weisenfelder also plans to file a motion
with the 12th District Court of Appeals.  The 12th District court
handed down its ruling on whether the case can be certified as a
class action.  Mr. Weisenfelder said he will ask the court to now
reconsider its decision, also based on the Toledo decision.

The 12th District Court judges decided Sage didn't clearly
enunciate his reasons for certifying the plaintiffs as a class.
Mike Allen, the plaintiff's attorney said fixing that oversight
shouldn't be problem for the judge.  He also said the supreme
court ruling isn't a problem for his case going forward.
"All Walker dealt with, all, the only issue it dealt with was
whether these cases should be in the municipal court," Mr. Allen
said.  "Our cases, we did have that issue in there, but our main
overriding issue is the lack of due process granted to people who
contest these citations."

Sage had said he wanted to wait for the Ohio Supreme Court to
render a decision in the Toledo case before deciding if New Miami
officials would have to reimburse fines to drivers, totaling
nearly $1.8 million.  Mr. Weisenfelder said there are at least two
other cases involving the cameras on the high court docket.


UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Award "Pigford" Attorney's Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Mississippi law firm that briefly represented a black farmer,
before he won $6 million as part of the Pigford class action
against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is not entitled to
attorney's fees, reports Erik de la Garza at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling entered on December 18.

Nearly two decades of litigation in Pigford v. Glickman has
produced two major settlements for black farmers who claim to have
been improperly denied benefits from January 1983 to January 1997
because of racial discrimination by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

Edward Scott Jr. had been one of thousands who filed for a share
of the 1999 settlement based on the failure of his Mississippi row
crop and catfish farm in the early 1980s.  From February 1999 to
February 2001, Scott was represented by Boone Law Firm.

Though Scott could have taken a $50,000 payout from a settlement
option that required a minimal burden of proof, he opted for a
one-day mini-trial before an arbitrator where damages were not
capped.  After the arbitrator dismissed his claim, Scott
petitioned for review pro se and Boone reached a settlement with
USDA in 2003 for $580,000.  Scott did not see his claim
reinstated, however, until 2006, at which time he was represented
by attorney Phillip Fraas.

In 2011 the arbitrator awarded Scott more than $6 million in
economic damages, $150,000 in noneconomic damages, and more than
$241,000 in debt relief.  After Fraas petitioned for attorney's
fees and expenses in May 2014, Boone moved in May for fees and
expenses of $435,900 related to its work on the case.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., nixed
Boone's motion on December 17, rejecting the firm's claim that
Scott's claim was excluded from the $6 million award.

"Boone Law Firm cannot point to any ambiguity in the agreement's
expansive language," the opinion states.  "And contrary to Boone's
contention that the absence of a specific reference to Mr. Scott's
claim indicates its exclusion from the settlement, the agreement's
settlement of 'any and all' fee claims 'related in any way to any
aspect' of these actions for work performed through March 20,
2003, squarely encompasses Boone's work -- performed from February
1999 to February 2011 -- on Mr. Scott's case.

"By ignoring the plain language of the agreement, Boone Law Firm
fails to acknowledge that the firm has already been compensated
for the legal fees, costs, and expenses it incurred related to Mr.
Scott's claim."

The case is Timothy Pigford, et al. v. Tom Vilsack, Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture, Case No. 97-1978 (PLF),
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


WALGREEN CO: Inks MOU to Resolve "Hays" and "Potocki" Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 24, 2014, that a Walgreens
shareholder brought on December 5, 2014, a putative class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreens, Walgreens Boots Alliance, and the members of
the Walgreens Board of Directors (the "Board") alleging violations
of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
breaches of the Board's fiduciary duty of disclosure under
Illinois state law (Hays v. Babiak, et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-
cv-09786). On December 12, 2014, another Walgreens shareholder
brought a substantially similar complaint, also in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Potocki v.
Skinner, et al., Civil Action No. 14-cv-10006) (collectively, the
"Litigation"). These actions allege that the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the special meeting of
Walgreens shareholders scheduled for December 29, 2014 are false
or misleading in various respects. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and
other relief. Defendants believe that the allegations asserted in
the two actions are without merit.

On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions (the "Memorandum
of Understanding") to settle the Litigation. Pursuant to the
Memorandum of Understanding, Walgreens has agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement/
prospectus (the "Proxy Statement") filed by Walgreens and
Walgreens Boots Alliance with the SEC and first mailed to
Walgreens shareholders on or about November 24, 2014. The proposed
settlement is subject to, among other things, approval of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Court").

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, following final Court
approval, the two cases will be dismissed with prejudice. There
can be no assurances, however, that the parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement or that Court approval of
the settlement will be obtained. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may
be terminated.


WHOLE FOODS: "Clemente" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Clemente, et al. v. Whole Foods
Market Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05652, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas (Austin).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-01142 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Whole Foods Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-mc-02588-SS.

The actions in the litigation share factual issues arising from
highly similar allegations that Whole Foods 365 Greek Yogurt
contains much more sugar than stated on its label, that the
Defendants' marketing of the Yogurt was false and deceptive, and
that the Defendants were negligent in testing the Yogurt, and in
ensuring that the label was accurate.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacob Oslick, Esq.
          620 - 8th Avenue, 31st Floor
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 218-6480
          E-mail: joslick@seyfarth.com


WHOLE FOODS: "Knox" Class Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Knox, et al. v. Whole Foods
Market, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-13185, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin).  The
Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01141 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Whole Foods Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-mc-02588-SS.

The actions in the litigation share factual issues arising from
highly similar allegations that Whole Foods 365 Greek Yogurt
contains much more sugar than stated on its label, that the
Defendants' marketing of the Yogurt was false and deceptive, and
that the Defendants were negligent in testing the Yogurt, and in
ensuring that the label was accurate.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
          BARON & HERSKOWITZ
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 670-0101
          E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          1016 Palm Ave.
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          507 C. Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
          132 Boylston St, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          E-mail: emirabella@gnemlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dawn M. Mertineit, Esq.
          Stephen Bazarian, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          World Trade Center East, Suite 300
          Two Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 946-4917
          Facsimile: (617) 790-5344
          E-mail: dmertineit@seyfarth.com
                  sbazarian@seyfarth.com


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Makes Defective Hip Implants, Songwriter Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Singer-songwriter Loudon Wainwright III has become a plaintiff in
a class action in California Superior Court accusing Wright
Medical Technology of making and distributing defective hip
implants, according to Courthouse News Service.


ZUFFA LLC: Boies Schiller to Lead UFC Class Action Defense
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Guillen Jr., writing for MMA Mania, reports that ZUFFA,
parent company of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), recently
announced that it has entrusted the law firm Boies, Schiller and
Flexner LPP to lead the charge in the class-action lawsuit levied
against the mixed martial arts (MMA) company a few weeks ago.

The official statement (via MMA Fighting):

"We have built a popular business from modest beginnings by
meeting the needs of fans and fighters.  Millions of people have
watched our bouts, we have instituted leading health and safety
measures for our athletes, and fighters are free to negotiate
contract terms.  We will stand up against the plaintiffs in this
litigation every step of the way, and have engaged attorneys from
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP with a depth of experience in
antitrust issues.  We are proud of the company we have built,
confident in our legal position, and intend to prevail in this
lawsuit."

Lead litigator, Bill Isaacson, also released a statement:

"The antitrust laws have long favored companies that create new
products and services that consumers want.  That is exactly what
the UFC has done here through its long and substantial investment
in building a popular sport."

The original class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Cung Le,
Jon Fitch, and Nate Quarry on Dec. 16, 2014 with Brandon Vera and
Pablo Garza joining the fight shortly thereafter.

The plaintiffs are being represented by major antitrust firm,
Cohen Milstein Law Firm, who earlier this year was a part of a
$450 million lawsuit settlement against consumer electronics
giant, Apple.

Also, Joseph Saveri Law Firm -- whose lawyers are currently deeply
involved in high-profile cases against Apple, Google, Intel, Pixar
and Lucasfilm -- will be a part of the legal proceedings.
Rounding out the team is Berger and Montague, a law firm that has
won over $22 billion in verdicts and settlements.

While those resumes are indeed impressive, ZUFFA's legal team --
which was described the The Wall Street Journal as a "litigation
powerhouse" -- isn't exactly the junior varsity squad.

The firm -- which is known for its landmark cases such as United
States vs. Microsoft, Bush vs. Gore and In re Vitamins -- recently
won a $4 billion settlement for American Express against Visa and
Mastercard.

More recently, it assisted in winning a landmark case that saw
former college basketball standout, Ed O'Bannon and NBA legends
Bill Russel and OscarRobertson, sue the NCAA claiming "it violated
antitrust laws by conspiring with the schools and conferences to
block the athletes from getting a share of the revenues generated
from the use of their images in broadcasts and video games."

The injunction will now allow players at big schools to have a
trust fund set up that will include money -- which will not exceed
$20,000 or $5,000 per year -- generated from television contracts,
which will only be available to them once they leave school.


ZUFFA LLC: UFC Abandons In-House Drug Testing; Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Botter, writing for Bleacher Report, reports that the
Ultimate Fighting Champion has abandoned the plans it once had for
an in-house drug testing program that would see all of its
contracted fighters tested randomly year-round.

UFC president Dana White revealed the news during a media session
attended by Bleacher Report on Jan. 1 at the MGM Grand.

Ms. White said that the UFC's experience with Cung Le's failed
drug test after his loss to Michael Bisping in China was the
impetus for recalling the program.  Ms. White said Mr. Le was
initially suspended for being "18 times the limit" and that the
fighter agreed to a nine-month suspension.

But after the suspension was agreed, UFC CEO Lorenzo Fertitta
decided to add an additional three months to the suspension,
feeling that nine months was not long enough.

"When we went back to them with 12 months, that's when they fought
it," Ms. White said.

The snafu led to Mr. Le's suspension being overturned entirely.
He is now part of a class-action lawsuit pending against the
promotion.

Ms. White said the experience made him realize the UFC cannot
oversee its own program.

"Our legal team completed screwed that up.  We f----d it up, and
we will f--k it up again.  That's what the commission is there
for," he said.

Ms. White continued by saying that while they have come to the
realization that the promotion cannot oversee its own drug testing
program, Zuffa will instead give more money to athletic
commissions to help fund additional testing.

"What we'll do is we'll help fund it, so they can do more drug
testing," he said.  "Our legal department screwed that whole thing
up.  We've got no business handling the regulation."

Ms. White also confirmed that he believed Mr. Le's participation
in the class-action lawsuit stems directly from the botched test
results.


* Privacy & Data Security Concerns to Take Center Stage This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to CMO Today's Linda Goldstein, with retargeting,
personalization and big data emerging among the top media trends,
concerns over privacy and data security are expected to take
center stage this year.  Even if Congress is not successful in
implementing new privacy legislation, marketers can expect the FTC
and the class action bar to remain vigilant in scrutinizing
companies' marketing and data practices.

As the channels through which data is being collected and shared
become more complex, brands will be increasingly challenged to
understand exactly what information is being collected and how,
and with whom and how it is being shared.  This will require
closer alignment between data specialists within companies and
their privacy counsel to ensure that privacy policies accurately
reflect existing privacy practices.  The vast majority of privacy
cases brought in 2014 resulted from the failure to honor stated
privacy policies and promises.  And as the sheer volume of data
being collected including highly sensitive data continues to
increase, concerns over data security and potential breaches will
likewise intensify.  The high-profile data security breaches that
occurred at Target and other top retailers should be a stark
reminder to marketers of the reputational damage that can result
from the failure to properly secure sensitive data.


* Renewed Interest in "Tort Reform" Expected This Year
------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Hatcher-May, writing for MediaMatters, reports that outlets
like The Wall Street Journal and Forbes were particularly vocal --
as they always are -- in their opposition to class action
lawsuits, legal challenges that can provide meaningful relief for
consumers who have been harmed by corporate malfeasance.  Right-
wing media often channeled talking points from the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, a lobbying group that has been at the forefront of the
anti-class action movement -- and whose pro-business message has
found a sympathetic ear in Chief Justice John Roberts and the
other conservatives on the Supreme Court.

With Republicans in control of Congress, there may be renewed
interest in "tort reform" -- efforts to curb so-called "frivolous
lawsuits" that actually have the effect of keeping legitimate
plaintiffs out of court.  Many reform proposals include limits on
monetary damages that are supposed to dis-incentivize fraudulent
claims, but actually financially benefit insurance companies and
shift the cost of caring for injured parties away from corporate
wrongdoers to the general public.

As they did this year with a conservative attack on investor class
actions, the Roberts Court -- Corporate America's best friend --
will continue to keep looking for ways to cut back on collective
legal action, much to right-wing media's delight.


                             *********

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  * * *